Full text of "Predictors of cognitive hardiness in young adult children of divorce"

See other formats

PREDICTORS OF COGNITIVE HARDINESS
IN YOUNG ADULT CHILDREN OF DIVORCE

VIRGINL\ MONTGOMERY BONEY

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTLM, FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2002

UMI Number 3083970

UMI'

UMI Microform 3083970
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
Ail rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United Slates Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to extend my deepest thanks to my children, friends, and colleagues
who have given me guidance, support, and encouragement throughout my journey as a
doctoral student, and in particular, during the dissertation process. I am especially
indebted to my good friend and colleague, Michael Malec, who "blazed the trail" for me
as a doctoral student, and strongly encouraged me to invite Dr. Ellen Amatea to chair my
dissertation committee long before I had ever made her acquaintance. [ remain in awe of
the endless patience and wisdom that Dr. Amatea has demonstrated throughout my
pursuit of a doctoral degree. In addition, I deeply admire her rigor as a researcher and
willingness to instill exemplary research and critical thinking skills in her students. On a
personal level. Dr. Amatea has been an invaluable source of support and encouragement
during those times when this journey seemed insurmountable.

I am also blessed to have had three outstanding professors invest their time and
scholarly wisdom in guiding me through the dissertation process. Dr. Sylvia-Echevarria
Doan has generously shared valuable insight from her wealth of knowledge of the field of
family therapy. She has also provided me with the opportunity to deepen and refine my
skills as a clinician through her teaching and supervision. Dr. Peter A. D. Sherrard
assisted me in selecting a lens through which to examine the experiences of young adult
children of divorce. In addition, his knowledge of the supervision process has greatly
enhanced my passion and skills as a clinical supervisor. Lastly, I am indebted to

Dr. David Miller for his steadfast patience in guiding me through the analysis process and
broadening my understanding of statistics.

This five-year journey would never have culminated in success without the
encouragement and unselfishness of my three precious daughters — Mary Sheldon,
Virginia, and Frances. The sacrifices that they have made over the years to support me in
this endeavor are innumerable. My hope is that I will be able to support them as
generously and fully as they deserve in their pursuit of their own dreams. Lastly, I am
deeply indebted to the spirit of perseverance that my best fiiend Bruce has nurtured in me
throughout this journey. His faith in me has encouraged me to persevere when my dream
seemed unattainable.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BS8S

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

ABSTRACT viii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION I

Theoretical Framework 4

Scope of the Problem 1 1

Need for the Study 21

Purpose 29

Research Questions 29

Definition of Terms 30

Organization of the Study. 32

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 33

Introduction 33

Resilient Individuals 34

Young Adult Children of Divorce 39

Parental Nurturance 51

Parental Authority 52

Cognitive Hardiness 54

3 METHODOLOGY _ 56

Statement of Purpose 56

Hypotheses 56

Design of the Study 58

Delineation of Relevant Variables 58

Data Analysis 62

Description of the Population 65

Sampling Procedures 65

Subjects 66

Data Collection „ 68

Instrumentation. „ „. 70

4 DATA ANALYSIS 85

Analysis Procedures 85

Analysis Results 90

Hypothesis Testing 100

5 DISCUSSION 107

Overview of the Study 107

Research Sample 107

Cognitive Hardiness and Gender. 1 08

Cognitive Hardiness and Age at Time of Parents' Divorce 109

Cognitive Hardiness and Maternal Nurturance 1 10

Cognitive Hardiness and Paternal Nurturance 1 1 3

Cognitive Hardiness and Maternal Permissiveness 1 16

Cognitive Hardiness and Maternal Authoritativeness 1 1 8

Cognitive Hardiness and Maternal Authoritatarianism 1 19

Cognitive Hardiness and Paternal Permissiveness 120

Cognitive Hardiness and Maternal Authoritativeness 121

Cognitive Hardiness and Paternal Authoritarianism 125

Cognitive Hardiness and Interparental Conflict 1 26

Cognitive Hardiness and the Set of Predictor Variables 1 27

Limitations of the Study 1 28

Implications 1 39

Summary 145

APPENDIX

A LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS 146

B DEMOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET 148

C REFERENCES 150

D BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 163

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

PREDICTORS OF COGNITIVE HARDINESS
IN YOUNG ADULT CHILDREN OF DIVORCE

Virginia Montgomery Boney
December 2002

Chairman: Ellen Amatea, Ph.D.

Major Department: Counselor Education

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of eleven variables in

predicting the level of cognitive hardiness in young adult children of divorce. Eight of

these variables focused on aspects of parent-child interaction reported by young adult

children of divorce: (a) the level of nurturance of the mother, (b) the level of nurturance

of the father, (c) the level of maternal authoritativeness, (d) the level of maternal

permissiveness, (e) the level of maternal authoritarianism, (0 the level of paternal

authoritativeness, (g) the level of paternal permissiveness, and (h) the level of paternal

authoritarianism. The ninth variable was post-divorce inter-parental conflict. The two

remaining variables were gender and age at time of parental divorce. The first two

variables were measured by the Parental Nurturance Scale (Buri, 1989); the three parental

authority styles for each parent were measured by the Parental Authority Questionnaire

(Buri, 1991). The level of post-divorce inter-parental conflict was measured by the Post-

Divorce Parental Conflict Scale (Sonnenblick & Schwartz, 1992). The sample for this
study consisted of 1 10 young adult college students (i.e., ranging in age from 18 to 25
years) who self-identified as having experienced a parental divorce at least 12 months
prior to the study.

Correlational analyses were conducted to test the association between each of the
independent variables and the dependent variable, cognitive hardiness. Two variables
were found to be significantly associated with cognitive hardiness: paternal nuturance
(E<.01) and maternal nurtuance (E<.05). Regression analysis was used to evaluate the
contribution of the eleven variables in predicting the level of cognitive hardiness as
measured by the Cognitive Hardiness Scale (Nowack. 1989). The set of predictor
variables explained 27% (R-=.266) of the variance in cognitive hardiness in young adult
children of divorce and reached significance (e<.05). Statistically significant associations
(E<.05) were found between cognitive hardiness and two of the paternal variables —
paternal nurturance and paternal authoritativeness. Post hoc analyses revealed indirect
effects of paternal authoriutiveness and paternal authoritarianism on cognitive hardiness.
Discussion of the results, implications and limitations of this study were presented, and
suggestions for future research were made.

vii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Four of every ten children in the United States reside with a single mother
(Bianchi 1 995). Marital separation and divorce continue to be the most common
trajectory for mothers heading custodial households, and 85% to 90% of children and
adolescents whose parents are divorced live with their mothers (Depner & Bray 1993).
Researchers studying the effects of divorce on children have tended to focus on the
negative consequences of marital dissolution for children and adolescents ( Aquilino
1994, Barber & Eccles 1995). Early studies of the consequences of parental divorce have
been guided by the assumption that the traditional heterosexual nuclear family is the most
effective family structure in which to raise children, and therefore single-parent family
households create deviance or deficits. Only a handful of studies explore the positive
features of divorced families (Arditti 1999, Arditti & Madden-Derdich 1995, Colby &
Bretherton 1999, Hanson 1986, Monrison 1995, Richards & Schmeige 1993).

Most researchers studying children's adjustment to divorce assume that
disturbance or dysfunction is a predictable result of parental divorce. Such research
focuses on identifying problematic parenting processes that are associated with negative
consequences for children of divorce. However, contemporary researchers are suggesting
that nontraditional family households may be legitimate and viable contexts for
successfiil parenting. As a result, several recent studies have examined protective

factors in single-parent families created by divorce that contribute to successful
adaptation of children of divorce.

Emery and Forehand (1994) suggest that framing the experience of parental
divorce within a risk and resilience research perspective is useful for several reasons:
(a) divorce is a significant life stressor whose impact on numerous areas of functioning
for children (e.g., emotional, psychological, behavioral, and relational) is well
documented in the empirical literature; (b) despite the challenges that the experience of
parental divorce creates for children and adolescents, most offspring adequately adjust to
the changes in their family life; and (c) clinical investigators have tended to erroneously
conclude that the competent functioning of a child of divorce serves to mask their
emotional response to parental divorce.

In contrast to early studies of divorce that focused on risk factors associated with
negative developmental outcomes for children of divorce (e.g., interparental conflict,
economic pressure, loss of contact with the noncustodial parent), a focus on resilience
seeks to identify protective factors that contribute to successful adaptation and
competencies for children of divorce (Masten, Best & Garmezy 1991).

Consistent with a focus on risk and resilience, Kobasa and associates (ICobasa
1979, Kobasa, Maddi & Courington 1981, Maddi & Kobasa 1984) investigated
personality traits that function as protective factors in mediating the stress-illness
relationship. They identified an aggregate personality construct, hardiness, which
seemed to buffer the effects of stressful life events. This construct is conceptualized as
multi-dimensional, consisting of three components: an internal sense of control (versus
powerlessness), a commitment to work and life activities (versus alienation), and a

perception of life changes and demands as a challenge (versus threat). These optinnistic
beliefs and tendencies comprise Kobasa's proposed hardy personality style, which has
been the focus of numerous studies documenting its protective effect on the stress-strain
relationship (Kobasa 1982, Kobasa, Maddi & Kahn 1982, Kobasa, Maddi & Zola 1983,
Kobasa & Puccetti 1983).

Hardy individuals are characterized by a transformational coping style that
generates adaptive cognitions that reduce the importance or impact of perceived
demands, threats, or challenges on well-being (Greene & Nowack 1995). Therefore, a
hardy individual would respond to stressfiil life events with optimistic cognitive
appraisals and actions directed toward those events. In a number of studies, Kobasa et al.
provided support for the hypothesis that individuals who respond to the challenges of
work and life with hardy appraisals are physically healthier (Kobasa 1979, Kobasa et al.
1982, 1983, Kobasa & Puccetti 1983; Maddi & Kobasa 1984).

The need for alternative research perspectives in exploring the consequences of
parental divorce is underscored by the lack of attention given to examining differences in
family processes within the same family structure. However, several recent studies that
explored variations in adaptation within groups of children of divorce reported evidence
of healthy growth and favorable adaptation in single-parent families created by divorce
(Arditti 1999, Arditti & Madden-Derdich 1995, Golby & Bretherton 1999, Hanson 1986,
Morrison 1995, Richards & Schmeige 1993). While the quality of parent-child
relationships is significantly associated with positive developmental outcomes for
children of divorce (Amato & Booth 1991, Johnson & McNeil 1998, Kurdek & Sinclair
1988), few studies examine the specific interactional processes in single-parent families

that may contribute to successful adjustment of offspring. Furthermore, no studies to
date have explored the relationship between specific parent-child processes and the level
of hardiness in young adult children of divorce.

Therefore, this study sought to contribute to existing research by using a
resilience perspective to explore the presence of cognitive hardiness in young adults
whose parents are divorced. The relative influence of nine relational variables and two
demographic variables on the development of cognitive hardiness in young adult children
of divorce was examined. Relational variables included (a) level of nurturance of the
mother, (b) level of nurturance of the father, (c) level of maternal authoritativeness, (d)
level of maternal permissiveness, (e) level of maternal authoritarianism, (f) level of
paternal authoritativeness, (g) level of paternal permissiveness, (h) level of paternal
authoritarianism, and (i) level of interparental conflict post divorce. The two
demographic variables that were examined in relation to the development of cognitive
hardiness were gender and age at time of parental divorce.

Theoretical Framework

To explain the development of cognitive hardiness in young adult children of
divorce, a theoretical framework is needed that identifies the particular family processes
that contribute to the development of cognitive hardiness in children whose parents have
divorced. Consequently, this study was based on two theoretical perspectives; Maddi and
Kobasa's (1984) hardiness theory and Weiss' (1979) theory of the structure and
functioning of custodial single-parent households created by divorce.

Hardiness theory, as initially formulated by Kobasa (1979), suggests that
individuals who remain healthy despite experiencing high levels of stress have a different

personality structure than individuals who become ill under circumstances of high stress.
Kobasa's (1979) theory is based on her empirical research on business executives who
appeared to have personality characteristics that enabled them to remain physically
healthy in the face of numerous stressful life events. This coping construct, identified by
Kobasa as hardiness, is conceptualized as an optimistic orientation comprised of three
intertwined personality characteristics: (a) control— the belief that one can influence life
events, (b) commitment— the ability to maintain curiosity and feel deeply involved in life
activities, and (c) challenge-a view of change as both normal and an opportunity for
further individual growth (Kobasa 1979, Kobasa et al.l981, Maddi & Kobasa 1984).

Hardiness theory is undergirded by two major theoretical premises of existential
psychology (Kobasa 1979). First of all, personality is actively constructed though a
dynamic process. Secondly, despite the stress created by inevitable life changes,
individuals possess the ability to approach stressful life events as opportunities for
growth. Hardy individuals are characterized by "an amalgam of cognition, emotion, and
action aimed not only at survival but also at the enrichment of life through development"
(Kobasa, Maddi & Courington 1981, p. 368). Because the beliefs and behavioral
tendencies that characterize individuals high in hardiness are useful in coping with
stressful events, cognitive hardiness can be conceptualized as a personality strength. The
dual process of optimistic cognitive appraisal of potentially stressful life events and
decisive interaction with these events so as to reduce or terminate their stressfubess, is
also known as "transformational coping" (Kobasa, Maddi & Courington 1981). Maddi
and Kobasa (1984) proposed that cognitive hardiness operates through transformational
coping to diminish or buffer the negative effects of life stressors.

Kobasa and Maddi (1984) formulated their theory about the development of
personality hardiness based on qualitative data from interviews with study participants,
the researchers' clinical experience with psychotherapy clients, and research fmdings
from other psychological studies. Data from these various sources suggested that three
aspects characterize the early experiences of children who develop hardy personalities:
(a) interaction with parents who provide nurturance, acceptance, and encouragement, (b)
opportunity to master tasks of moderate difficulty, and (c) encountering change as rich,
interesting and developmentally valuable.

According to hardiness theory, children develop general views about themselves
and their environments that are influenced by the quality of their parent-child interactions
during childhood and adolescence (Maddi & Kobasa 1984). These dispositions are
hypothesized to influence the development of an individual's sense of commitment,
control, and challenge-the dimensions of cognitive hardiness. First, a sense of
commitment to self and the environment is hypothesized to be influenced by "the overall
degree to which the interactions children have with their parents are supportive (i.e.,
provided encouragement and acceptance)" (Maddi & Kobasa 1984, p. 49). According to
hardiness theory, children experience parental support when they receive approval,
interest, and encouragement in regard to their efforts to satisfy their needs (e.g., safety or
love) and potentialities (e.g., mathematical or artistic ability).

These supportive behaviors and attitudes are similar to those conceptualized by
Buri (1989) as nurturing. Buri (1989) defines parental nurturance as parental warmth,
support, love, approval, attention, and concern. Kobasa and her colleagues posit that the
experience of a high degree of parental support encourages children and adolescents to

perceive themselves and the world as interesting and worthwhile. This positive
disposition toward self and the world undergirds an individual's sense of conunitment to
self and one's environment. Conversely, when children's efforts are generally met with
parental disapproval, hostility, or neglect, children perceive themselves and their world as
empty and worthless. As a result, they lack a sense of commitment (Maddi & Kobasa
1984).

The second component of cognitive hardiness, a sense of control, is hypothesized
to develop as a result of children's overall success in mastering moderately difficult tasks
in their environment. Possession of a sense of mastery or accomplishment provides
opportunities for children to develop a sense that they are able to influence their
environment, and create a willingness to act on that sense of control (Maddi & Kobasa
1984). However, if the overall proportion of a child's tasks are too difficult to master and
result in failure, a sense of powerlessness over his/her environment develops. Parents
have the opportunity to influence the development of a sense of control in their children
by providing their children with tasks that are moderate in difficulty and within their
ability to master.

The final component of hardiness, a sense of challenge, reflects the degree to
which an individual believes that change is normal and an opportiuiity for personal
growth. Kobasa and Maddi (1984) suggest that two conditions are necessary for children
to develop a sense of challenge. First of all, children need opportunities to experience
change in their environment, whether large, obvious changes (e.g., changes in residences,
a parental divorce) or more subtle changes (e.g., varying household tasks, having a
variety of hobbies, interacting with siblings and parents who themselves are at different

developmental stages). Secondly, parents need to communicate to their children that
change is not only interesting, but also a developmcntally valuable opportunity.

The parent-child interactions that Kobasa and Maddi (1984) identified that
contribute to the development of hardiness in children are similar to the parenting
behaviors described by Baumrind ( 1 971 ) as authoritative parenting. Based on her
longitudinal program of research on families (Family Socialization and Developmental
Competence Project [FSP]), Baumrind (1971) formulated three distinct prototypes of
parental authority-permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian. She describes permissive
parents as relatively noncontrolling in their interactions with their children, and as using a
minimum of punishment in disciplining their children. These parents make fewer
demands on their children than other parents do, and give their children as much control
as possible over their own activities. On the other hand, authoritarian parents use
punitive measures to control their children's behavior and enforce the directions given to
them. These parents are described as detached, valuing unquestionable obedience, and
less warm than other parents. Authoritarian parents discourage verbal give-and-take, and
attempt to shape and control their children's behaviors and attitudes whenever possible.

The third parenting prototype identified by Baumrind (1971) is an authoritative
parenting style. These parents are described as providing clear and firm direction for
their children, and exercising their authority in a warm, rational, flexible, bargaining style
that encourages communication with their children. Authoritative parents establish
relatively demanding expectations of their children and adolescents in order to provide
opportimity for the development of a sense of mastery and accomplishment. In general,
this parenting prototype is characterized by high levels of responsiveness and high levels

of demandingness. similar to the characteristics of the family atmosphere identified by
Maddi and Kobasa as most conducive to the development of personality hardiness.

Weiss (1979) formulated a theory of the structure and functioning of single-parent
households that suggests that these alternative family structures provide opportunity for
changes in parental authority and parent-child relationships. He formulated his theory
from qualitative data collected in a series of studies conducted within the research
program of The Laboratory of Community Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Over
200 single parents &om diverse educational and occupational backgrounds were
interviewed, many of whom participated in multiple interviews over intervals of 6
months to a year. Weiss (1979) also interviewed married couples for comparison
purposes, in addition to individual interviews with children and adolescents ranging in
age from 6 years old to young adult.

According to Weiss, the loss of a parent from a newly created single-parent
custodial household tends to decrease the social distance within the family, and open the
normal boundaries between the custodial parent and their children. As a result,
communication and disclosure increase, and the parent-child relationship is characterized
by greater equality, more frequent interaction, and increased cohesiveness
(i.e., heightened intimacy and companionship). However, Weiss (1994) acknowledges
that the purported decrease in social distance resulting from the transition from a nuclear
family structure to one headed by a single divorced parent is not without its flaws.
Family systems theorists have historically expressed concern in regard to potential
"boundary violations" or "role reversals" that can occur when the intergenerational

boundaries between children and parents are weakened as a result of the elimination of
the spousal system through divorce (Fish, Belsky & Youngblade 1991).

The concept of interpersonal boundaries is associated with the structural concept
of hierarchy in a family system (Walters, Carter, Papp & Silverstein 1988). The function
of boundaries is to "to protect the autonomy of the family and its subsystems by
managing proximity and hierarchy" (Nichols & Schwartz 1998, p. 245). Weiss (1994)
identifies several boundary violations that can occur in single-parent custodial households
when the spousal system is eliminated and roles between the custodial parent and child
may reverse. For example, the custodial parent may (a) look to a child for support,
companionship, or sympathy, (b) seek reassurance through their child's reactions for
evidence of the validity of the parent's decision to divorce, or(c) share their emotional
and financial challenges with their child.

Weiss (1994) also theorizes that the authority structure is more egalitarian than
the traditional two-parent family. For example, some single-parent families demonstrate
a collaborative style of household management, greater sharing of responsibilities by all
family members, and joint participation in decision making. This collaborative style of
household management can enhance children's and adolescents' self-esteem by valuing
their contribution to the family, broadening their skills and competencies, and facilitating
the development of autonomy (Weiss 1979). According to Weiss, redefining the roles
and responsibilities of individuals as a result of the transition to a single-parent family
creates the opportimity for children and adolescents to become more responsible and
independent. However, greater responsibility for household management on the part of

offspring living in single-parent households can result in task overload or role reversal
(Hetherington, Cox & Cox 1982).

Weiss (1994) acknowledges that the transition to a more egalitarian style of
household management in households headed by a divorced parent can also create
problems in management and control. He suggests that, as a result of the increased
responsibility that children in single-parent households may have, offspring may feel
entitled to more influence in family decision-making. Another potential challenge is
children's expectation that their custodial parent observe the same rules that they do, or
be included in the distribution of chores. Weiss suggests that single divorced parents are
particularly challenged to use an authoritative style of parental authority because of the
absence of a second parent to reinforce their decision. The lack of a second parent in the
household or guilt about their parenting competency may result in custodial parents
assuming a more permissive authority style.

Scope of the Problem
In the United States about half of all first marriages end in divorce, and
demographers estimate that this trend will continue (Cherlin 1992). Because remarriage
after divorce is common, about one-half of all current marriages include a subsequent
marriage for one or both spouses (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998, Table 157).
Unfortunately, the likelihood of a second marriage ending in dissolution exceeds 60%
(AhronsI994). Not surprisingly, demographers estimate that one in every six adults will
experience two or more divorces (Cherlin 1992).

Needless to say, the prevalence of marital dissolution has implicatiotis that extend
beyond divorcing spouses. More than half of the nuclear families altered through divorce

include children under the age of 18 (Amato 2000). Estimates of the number of
children and adolescents experiencing parental separation and divorce before reaching
young adulthood exceed one million individuals (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998, Table
160). In other words, about 40% of all young adults will have experienced parental
divorce before age 18 (Bumpass 1990), and many of these young adult children of
divorce will have experienced multiple marital transitions of their biological parents.
Despite the significant proportion of young adults who have experienced parental divorce
and subsequent life in a single-parent household, only recently have researchers begun to
examine the effects of these transitions on this population. Unfortunately, most research
of the consequences of parental divorce uses a deficit perspective.
Research on Young Adult Children of Divorce

Most studies in the past few decades have perpetuated a deficit view of single-
parent households created by divorce. Historically, studies of the effects of divorce have
focused primarily on the negative consequences for children and adolescents. Recently
however, researchers have begun to examine the consequences of parental divorce for
young adults. Regardless of the age group of interest (i.e., children, adolescents, young
adults), studies examining the effects of parental divorce have generally been guided by
one of two research perspectives of divorce; structural or dynamic. Only recently have
studies of single-parent families examined protective factors that mediate the experience
of parental divorce and positive aspects of single-parent families.

The Structural Research Perspective. Eariy studies examining the effects of
parental divorce were interested in comparing difiFerences in individual outcomes on the
basis of family structure (i.e., intact or divorced). As a result, family structure was

conceptualized as the independent variable in studies of the effects of divorce from a
structural perspective. The most frequently cited study of the effects of parental divorce
fix>m a structural perspective is the longitudinal study of a California cohort of children of
divorce by Wallerstein and Kelly (1980). The original sample included 131 children and
adolescents from 60 white, middle-class families that had recently separated or filed for
divorce. Participants were recruited from a clinical sample, and follow-up data were
obtained when these children of divorce reached young adulthood. Regardless of gender,
these young adult children of divorce reported difliculty in establishing intimate
relationships (Wallerstein & Blakeslee 1989).

In another longitudinal study, Aro and Palosaari (1992) interviewed young adult
children of divorce 5 years after the first phase of their research when participants were
16 years old. Regardless of gender, the prevalence of depression among young adult
children of divorce was significantly higher than for offspring from intact families.
These researchers also found significant differences between participants according to
gender and family structure. Women from divorced families were significantly more
likely to experience divorce, separation, or abortion themselves, as compared to women
from intact families. In addition, females who experienced parental divorce also reported
more conflictual relationships with romantic partners, mothers, and friends. Young men
whose parents had divorced reported significantly more conflict with authority figures
(e.g., teachers) than did sons from nondivorced families.

Similar to longitudinal research on the effects of parental divorce, several
cross-sectional studies document interpersonal difficulties of young adult children of
divorce, particularly in romantic relationships. In their comparison of 102 female

undergraduate students who were equally grouped on the basis of family structure,
Southworth and Schwarz (1987) reported significant differences between the two groups
in regard to heterosexual trust. Bolgar, Zweig-Frank, and Paris (1995) recruited a large
sample (n=605) of college undergraduate students to examine the long-term effects of
parental divorce on interpersonal problems. Regardless of gender, young adult children
of divorce reported significantly more difficulty being submissive and intimate in
interpersonal relationships as compared to peers from intact families. In addition,
participants from divorced families described themselves as significantly more
controlling than participants whose parents remained married. The findings of this study
concur with the results of the research on Ensign, Scherman, and Clark (1998). In their
study of 101 college students, young adult children of divorce reported significantly
lower levels of intimacy in their romantic relationships than did students from intact
families.

Several researchers of the effects of divorce from a structural perspective have
used large data sets from national surveys to examine differences in outcomes among
young adults on the basis of family structure. fCulka and Weingarten (1979) compared
differences on a variety of measures of adult adjustment and psychological functioning
for 2264 participants between the ages of 21 and 34 years from divorced and intact
families. Unfortunately, only 1 1% (i.e., 194 participants) were fi-om divorced families
(n=194). Kulka and Weingarten (1979) found significant, albeit modest, differences
between young adult men and women on the basis of family structure. Young men &om
divorced families reported more concern about an impending nervous breakdown, and
greater difficulty in coping with life stressors.

Two longitudinal studies of the consequences of parental divorce used the same
data set from the National Survey of Children. Zill, Morrison, and Coiro (1993) found
significant differences among yoimg adults between the ages of 1 8 and 22 years on the
basis of family structure. As compared to young adults from intact families, participants
from divorced families were at significantly higher risk of having poor relationships with
their parents, becoming depressed, developing behavior problems, needing psychological
help, and dropping out of high school. Using this same data set for their analyses,
Furstenburg and Teitler ( 1 994) found that young adults from divorced families were
significantly less likely than peers from intact families to attend college or be employed.
Additionally, the pregnancy rate for girls under the age of 19 years was significantly
higher for females whose parents were divorced.

Chase- Lansdale, Cherlin, and Kieman (1995) conducted a longitudinal study in
Great Britain on a cohort of 7,966 young adults, 382 of whom had parents who divorced
during the study. The researchers reported a 39% increase in the risk of psychopathology
for young adults whose parents divorced, and there were no significant differences
among participants on the basis of gender.

However, other studies failed to find significant differences among individuals on
the basis of family structure. Barkley and Procidano (1989) examined a variety of
outcomes (i.e., interpersonal dependency, perceived social support from fiiends and
family, locus of control, dating and assertion skills, and social desirability) among S8
college students from different family structures. Only one significant difference was
found; young adult children of divorce scored significantly higher in assertiveness
compared to their peers from intact families. Grant, Smith, Sinclair, and Salts (1993)

failed to find evidence of significant differences in college adjustment scores for
individuals on the basis of family structure. Lastly, Amato (1988) examined differences
in two measures of self-concept (i.e., self-esteem and sense of power) among young
adults between the ages of 18 and 34 years from divorced and intact families, and found
no evidence of significant differences in self-esteem between participants on the basis of
family structure.

The Dynamic Research Perspective. During the 1970s, as a result of the influence
of Bertalanffy's General Systems Theory and Bateson's application of cybernetics to
family systems, researchers began to widen the lens through which they examined the
effects of parental divorce. The dynamic view of divorce conceptualizes marital
dissolution as a process that influences family dynamics, relationships, and household
management. Unlike the structural perspective, which focuses on differences among
young adults as a result of family structure, research from the dynamic paradigm
considers the mediating and moderating effect of other extraneous variables in examining
the consequences of parental divorce. Most research on the consequences of parental
divorce from a dynamic perspective provides evidence that post divorce family
relationships and dynamics (e.g., the nature of parent-child relationships, the relationship
between former spouses, parenting styles) account for more of the variance between
groups of individuals from intact and divorced families than does the event of divorce or
of living in a single-parent family created by marital dissolution.

Consensus exists among studies using a dynamic perspective of an inverse
relationship between ratings of interparental conflict post divorce and young adults' well-
being (Ensign et al.l998, Garber 1991, Johnson & McNeil 1998, Nelson, Hughes,

■ I

Handal, Katz & Searight 1993, Schmidtgall, King, Zarski & Cooper 2000). Garber
(1991) investigated the long-tenn effects of family structure and interparental conflict on
the self-esteem of 306 young adults between 18 and 24 years old. Interparental conflict
was significantly related to self-esteem, while differences in self-esteem as a result of
family structure were insignificant. Nelson, Hughes, Handal, Katz, and Searight (1993)
found similar results in their investigation of the relationships among family structure and
family conflict and adjustment in young adult college students. A statistically significant
relationship between family conflict and adjustment to college was identified. In a
sample of 243 young adults between the ages of 17 and 22 years. Neighbors, Forehand,
and Bau (1997) found a small but significant relationship between interparental conflict
and antisocial behavior in male young adults from divorced families.

Ensign and her colleagues (1998) investigated the relationship of parental conflict
and family structure to levels of intimacy and parental attachment in 101 college students.
Significant negative correlatiotis were found between interparental conflict and level of
intimacy. Findings from this research also revealed an inverse relationship between the
level of interparental conflict and the level of closeness in parent-child relationships.
Johnson and McNeil (1998) also identified a significant relationship between higher
levels of parental conflict post divorce and lower levels of intimacy and individuation
between college students and their divorced parents. In their study of 52 female
undergraduate students from divorced families, Schmidtgall et al. (200O) found a
significant relationship between interparental conflict and depressive symptomatology.
Contrary to previous studies, family structure did not sigmficantly affect the level of
depression reported in this young adult sample.

Support for a mediating effect of parent-child relationships and parenting style
on adjustment of offspring to parental divorce is found in several studies from a dynamic
research perspective. Regardless of gender, custodial parents who demonstrate parenting
behaviors characterized by high levels of nurturance, communication, and an
authoritative style are associated with positive adjustment of offspring (Demo 1992,
Hetherington & Clingemanpeel 1992, Steinberg, Mounts, Lambom & Dombusch 1991).
Neighbors et al. (1997) investigated the mediating role of relations with parents in young
adult children of divorce, and found evidence that the presence of close and supportive
relationships with parents post divorce is associated with significantly lower levels of
psychological distress, regardless of gender. Weiner, Harlow, Adams, and Grebstein
(199S) found similar results in their research on predictors of psychological adjustment of
college students from families of divorce. Findings from their study demonstrate that
paternal indifference, lack of paternal caring, and maternal indifference were significant
predictors of college adjustment for young adult children of divorce.

Open and direct communication, or expressiveness, was found to be the most
significant family variable post divorce contributing to developmental task attaitunent in
young adult children of divorce (Johnson and McNeil 1998). Evans and Bloom (1996)
also found evidence of a significant moderating effect of parent-child relations after
divorce. In their study of 140 college undergraduates from divorced families, the quality
of the mother-child relationship and level of authoritativeness observed in both parents
were found to significantly moderate the effects of parental divorce for yoimg adults.

The Resilience Research Perspective. As an alternative to the focus of earlier
studies of divorce on the risk factors that contribute to negative developmental outcomes

for children of divorce, contemporary researchers have begun to examine protective
factors that contribute to successful adaptation and positive outcomes for children of
divorce (Masten, Best & Garmezy 1991). While few studies in the divorce literature
examined young adults' experience of parental divorce from a resilience research
perspective, researchers have identified protective factors that contribute to positive
outcomes for children in a context of adversity (e.g., poverty, parental mental illness,
chronic illness). Protective variables identified in the resilience literature are categorized
into three groups: individual (e.g., temperament, internal locus of control, age, self-
eflicacy), family (e.g., parental nurturance, quality of parent-child relationship, parental
harmony, parental authority), and extrafamilial (e.g., social support) by Garmezy (1985,
1991).

Only six studies were located that examined strengths or competencies in
single-parent families of divorce (Arditti 1999, Arditti & Madden-Derdich 1995, Golby
& Bretherton 1999, Hanson 1986, Morrison 1995, Richards & Schmeige 1993). The
findings of these studies support the viability and strengths of these nontraditional family
structures. However, only one study examined specific mother-child interactions that
contribute to the quality of the parent-child relationship in the context of a single-parent
household headed by a divorced mother. Arditti (1999) found support for the benefits of
maternal proximity, involvement, and support for young adult children of divorce. Other
positive characteristics of relationships between custodial mothers and their children
identified in this study include a greater sense of equality, more frequent interaction,
increased discussion, and greater intimacy and companionship. However, no studies to

date explored the development of personality strengths in individuals who experienced

parental divorce.

Gender and Cognitive Hardiness

Hardiness research has been criticized for its reliance on studies that examine this
personality strength in only one gender (Lambert & Lambert 1999, Shepperd & Kashani
1991). Consensus exists among studies concerning of significant relationship between
gender and the level of cognitive hardiness. In her research on cognitive hardiness in a
college-age population, Perrah (1990) found no significant relationship between gender
and level of cognitive hardiness. Several other studies also failed to find evidence of a
significant relationship between gender and level of cognitive hardiness (Greene &
Nowack 1995, Nowack 1985, 1989, 1990, 1991). Only one study was located that
reported a significant difference between gender and level of cognitive hardiness. In his
investigation of the effects of coping style and cognitive hardiness on physical and
psychological health status among 194 professional employees, Nowack (1988) found
that the level of cognitive hardiness in women working fiill-time was significantly less
than that of their male colleagues. However, later studies by Nowack (1985, 1990, 1991)
on the cognitive hardiness of professional employees failed to support this finding
(Greene & Nowack 1995).

Relational Variables and the Development of Hardiness

No studies were located that investigated the relationship between parent-child
interactions and the development of cognitive hardiness that Maddi and Kobasa (1984)
propose in their theory of hardiness. Most studies of cognitive hardiness examine the
moderating influence of this personality characteristic in coping with stress. A plethora

of Studies provide empirical evidence of the buEFering effect of cognitive hardiness on
physical illness and psychological distress.

Maddi and Kobasa (1984) relied on interviews with business executives in their
study, their clinical experience with psychotherapy clients, and research findings of other
psychological studies to suggest how hardiness develops in individuals. Their theory of
the development of hardiness identifies qualitative aspects of parent-child interactions
that promote the development of this personality strength These parenting behaviors are
similar to the constructs of parental nurturance (Buri 1989) and an authoritative parenting
style (Baumrind 1971). However, Maddi and Kobasa (1984) exclude the potential
influence of the quality of the relationship between parents on the development of
cognitive hardiness in offspring. Regardless of family structure, no studies were located
that examined the influence of these family relational variables (i.e., parental nurturance,
parental authority, interparental conflict) on the development of cognitive hardiness in
individuals.

Need for the Study

Researchers have begun to examine variations within groups of individuals who
have experienced parental divorce. These studies provide evidence of healthy growth
and favorable adaptation in many post divorce families (Arditti 1999, Arditti & Madden-
Derdich 1995, Golby & Bretherton 1999, Hanson 1986, Morrison 1995, Richards &
Schmeige 1993). Despite evidence that the quality of post divorce family functioning is
the most salient predictor of individual outcomes (Amato & Booth 1991, Johnson &
McNeil 1998, Kurdek & Sinclair 1988), few studies examine the specific family
processes that contribute to adaptive family functioning after divorce. Greater insight

and understanding is needed to identify the family interactional and contextual
variables that contribute to positive outcomes for young adults who have experienced the
divorce of their parents. Cognitive hardiness, the tendency to optimistically appraise
potentially stressful events (Kobasa 1979), is conceptualized as a personality strength
whose development is influenced by family processes. This study explored parent-child
and family process influences on the development of cognitive hardiness in young adult
children of divorce. Eleven potential influences were examined: gender, age at time of
biological parents' divorce, perceived maternal nurturance, perceived paternal nurturance,
maternal authoritativeness, maternal permissiveness, maternal authoritarianism, paternal
authoritativeness, paternal permissiveness, paternal authoritarianism, and post divorce
interparental conflict.

Unfortunately, many early studies of the effects of parental divorce on young
adults' well-being from the structural and dynamic research perspectives have been
plagued by methodological weaknesses that compromise the generalizability of fmdings:
control group research design, exclusion of salient extraneous variables, sampling issues,
measurement issues, overreliance on cross-sectional research, and statistical analyses.

Regardless of the research perspective (i.e., structural or dynamic), the research
design most oflen used to investigate the consequences of parental divorce is the
comparison group design. This between-groups design compares individuals from intact
two-parent families who have not experienced divorce, and those from families whose
structure has changed as a result of marital dissolution. Use of the comparison group
research design is problematic in comparing individuals solely on the basis of family
structure for several reasons. First of all, a guiding assumption is that the only difference

between individuals is the experience of parental divorce. Therefore, between-group
differences may be misattributed to family structure, as opposed to other potential
explanations for differences in outcomes. While control strategies may increase the
likelihood that differences between groups are accurately attributed to family structure, it
is virtually impossible to control for all potentially confounding variables.

Researchers' attempts to match participants in different groups in regard to
various characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status, gender, maternal employment), may
inadvertently lead to unrepresentative sampling (Blechman 1982). Another weakness of
the comparison group research design is the assumption that the effects of divorce are
constant across families and over time (Stewart, Copeland, Chester, Malley &
Barenbaum 1997). Finally, comparison group designs often fail to examine important
within-group differences, as both intact and binuclear families are assumed to be
homogeneous in nature.

Salient extraneous variables (e.g., economic hardship, exposure to interparental
conflict, parental education, social class) are often excluded in research designs from the
structural perspective of divorce. Exclusion of demographic and contextual factors may
lead to the erroneous conclusion that significant differences between groups of
individuals are caused by family structure, as opposed to other extraneous variables
(Acock & Demo 1994, Blechman 1982, Ford-Gilboe & Campbell 1996). Overall, studies
of the consequences of parental divorce from a dynamic perspective are characterized by
more sophisticated research designs that control for the confounding influence of
extraneous process variables (i.e., interparental conflict, quality of parent-child
relationship, loss of quantity and quality of contact with noncustodial parent). However,

similar to the structural view of divorce, most studies from a dynamic perspective fail
to control or account for the variance in outcomes associated with social and cultural
factors.

Significant sampling issues limit the generalizability of findings of most research
studies from both the structural and dynamic perspectives. In general, research on the
effects of parental divorce from a structural perspective is characterized by: (a) small
clinical samples of middle-class, white participants, and (b) use of research data sets
collected from large national surveys initially designed to obtain and analyze
demographic data for purposes unrelated to the experience of parental divorce.

Samples are described as "clinical" when researchers recruit participants from
individuals or families seeking mental health services. Sample bias may result when a
clinical population is used by researchers to examine the effect of divorce as these
individuals may not be representative of the larger, nonclinical p)opulation. In addition,
participants recruited from a clinical setting may exhibit more problematic behavior.
Clinical samples can create problem with regard to the interpretation of data, and limit
generalizability to the larger non-clinical population (Emery 1988). Amato and Keith
(1991a, 1991b) observed that the effect sizes for both psychological well being and
behavior/conduct outcomes were significantly larger for studies of individual outcomes
utilizing clinical samples. In addition, they reported significant differences in the mean
effect sizes between the clinical and non-clinical samples.

Other researchers have relied on large-scale national surveys for their
divorce-related research. Unfortunately, these data sets are also plagued by
methodological weaknesses: (a) theoretically significant variables are not measured, or

are poorly operationalized since the data was originally collected for another purpose;
(b) important control variables are not present in the research design, or (c) data is
reanalyzed for a purpose different that the intent of the original collection.

Unlike the heavy reliance on clinical samples characterizing studies from the
structural perspective, most studies using utilizing a dynamic perspective rely on
convenience samples comprised of volunteers. Amato and Keith (1991a, 1991b) suggest
that reliance on convenience samples may also create bias. Their review of the divorce
literature provides evidence that research based on convenience samples produces
stronger effect sizes than studies using other types of samples. However, convenience
samples, when selected to fit carefully constructed categories, are more desirable when
researchers intend to generalize to a specific population (Stevenson &. Black 1996).

Few studies from either the structural or dynamic research perspectives use
multiple means or sources of measurement, and often use invalid or unreliable
measurement instruments (Emery 1988, Guttman 1993). Rater bias may compromise the
validity and reliability of research on the consequences of divorce for children and
adolescents. Raters can be influenced by knowledge of the family structure of the
individual that they are evaluating (e.g., the child's teacher), or are related to the subject
(e.g., a mother). Both scenarios potentially impair the ability of the rater to be objective
(Emery 1988). Research suggests that teachers have been found to favor children from
intact families and exaggerate problems of children from divorced famihes (Blechman
1982, Santrock & Tracy 1978). An additional measurement issue that plagues studies
from a dynamic perspective is the operationalization of process variables, and the validity
and reliability of measurement instruments are common weakness of this research

paradigm. For example, one-fourth of the studies reviewed by Amato and Keith
(1991b) used a single-item measure to examine the quality of mother-child and father-
child relationships post divorce, potentially reducing the validity and reliability of these
findings.

Another limitation of studies of the effects of parental divorce from both the
structural and dynamic perspectives is the prevalence of cross-sectional research designs.
Weaknesses of this research design include limitations in regard to causal inference; and
difficulty interpreting findings, particularly in regard to detecting developmental
processes as opposed to effects of divorce (Demo & Acock 1988, Emery 1988). Most
individuals adjust to parental divorce within the first several years, and passage of time
has been shown to explain a greater proportion of the variance in the correlation between
divorce and child outcomes than does the event of divorce (Hetherington 1989).
However, cross-sectional designs may fail to consider the confounding affects of
temporal variables. Additionally, this type of research design does not allow for
examination of causal direction or development effects. Some characteristics of children
and adolescents that are considered consequences of divorce may in fact be present
before marital dissolution (Cherlin, Furstenberg, Chase-Lansdale, Kieman, Robins,
Morrison & Teitler 1 99 1 ). In order for researchers to determine whether di fferences
between groups of individuals are attributable to preexisting differences or parental
divorce, longitudinal studies are needed.

A final problem of both structural and dynamic studies of the effects of divorce is
in the area of statistical analyses. Most studies of the consequences of parental divorce,
particularly firom a structural perspective, use correlational analysis. Unfortunately,

researchers have often erroneously interpreted high correlations to imply a causal
relationship between family structure and the outcome variable being measured.
Correlation coefHcients do not provide sufficient information to imply causality, as the
relationship may be due to a third factor that is not included in the research design (Huck,
Cormier & Bounds 1974). Few studies bom the structiu-al perspective use sophisticated
analyses (e.g., multiple regression, analysis of covariance) to study the independent
causal effect of family structure. Moreover, use of small sample sizes may contribute to
the lack of more statistically sophisticated data analysis. However, however several
dynamic studies were located that used more sophisticated analyses and research designs
that attempt to control for many of the extraneous variables that may confound outcome
variables. Unfortunately, similar to studies of the effects of parental divorce from a
structural perspective, most research from the dynamic perspective is plagued by
sampling problems that reduce the generalizability of fmdings.

The past decade has witnessed a shift from the modernist research focus on
deficits, psychopathology, and mental illness to examining positive or adaptive aspects of
individual's personality and behavior (Seligman & Csikszentmihaiyi 2000). Concepts
such as resilience, positive psychology, hardiness, and optimism are becoming more
common in the research literature from a variety of disciplines. Therefore, use of a
strengths-based paradigm to examine the development of cognitive hardiness in young
adult children of divorce provides a postmodern lens through which "those relationship
patterns, interpersonal skills and competencies, and social and psychological
characteristics that create a positive family identity . . . and encourage the development of
the potential of the family group and individual family members" (Williams, Lingren,

Rowe, Van Zandt & Stinnettl985, preface) can be explored. The benefits of being
socialized in a single-parent household headed by a divorced mother have not been
adequately investigated, as most researchers have been guided by problem-focused
hypotheses that reflect the androcentric bias of modernist research. Barber and Eccles
(1992) emphasize "the need for researchers to focus on normal development in different
family types and on the processes that both negatively and positively influence
adjustment to family transitions" (p. 122).

The need for researchers to explore the effects of parental divorce for young
adults from a strengths-based perspective is underscored by the dearth of studies through
this postmodern lens. While four studies were located that examined the strengths of
single-parent families created by divorce (Arditti 1999, Ford-Gilboe 2000, Golby &
Bretherton 1999, Morrison 1995, Richards & Schmeige 1993), none of these explored
individual strengths for offspring who experienced the divorce of their parents. With the
exception of Arditti's (1999) research, all of these studies of strengths of single-parent
families created by divorce investigated the experience of living in this nontraditional
family structure from the perspective of the custodial parent. A strength of Arditti's
(1999) research is her use of the perspective of a young adult child of divorce to
investigate the strengths of mother-child relationships in single-parent families created by
divorce.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of eleven variables in
predicting the level of cognitive hardiness in young adult children of divorce. Eight of
these variables focused on aspects of parent-child interaction reported by the young adult

child of divorce: (a) level of nurturance of the mother, (b) level of nurturance of the
father, (c) level of maternal authoritativeness, (d) level of maternal permissiveness, (e)
level of maternal authoritarianism, (0 level of paternal authoritativeness, and (g) level of
paternal permissiveness. The ninth variable was post divorce interparental conflict. The
two remaining variables were gender and age at time of parental divorce. The sample for
this study consisted of young adult college students (i.e., ranging in age from 18 to 25
years) attending a junior college or 4-year university who self-identified as having
experienced a parental divorce at least 12 months before the study.

Research Questions
The following research questions were addressed in this study.

1. What is the relationship between gender and the level of cognitive hardiness
reported by young adult children of divorce?

2. What is the relationship between age and time of parental divorce and the
level of cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce?

3. What is the relationship between the level of nurturance characterizing the
mother- child and father-child relationship and the level of cognitive hardiness reported
by young adult children of divorce?

4. What is the relationship between the type of parenting style of the mother or
father and the level of cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce?

5. What is the relationship between the extent of parental conflict post divorce and
the level of cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce?

6. To what extent do these parent-child and parent-parent relationship variables
contribute to predicting the level of cognitive hardiness reported by young adult
children of divorce?

Definition of Terms

Age at time of parental divorce. The chronological age of an individual when
their biological parents divorced.

Authoritarian parenting style. Based on Baumrind's (1971) prototypes of
parental authority, authoritarian parents use punitive measures to control their children's
behavior and enforce the directions given to them. These parents are described as
detached, valuing unquestionable obedience, and less warm than other parents.
Authoritarian parents discourage verbal give-and-take, and attempt to shape and control
their children's behaviors and attitudes whenever possible.

Authoritative parenting style. Based on Baumrind's (1971) prototypes of parental
authority, authoritative parents are described as providing clear and firm direction for
their children. They tend to exercise their authority in a warm, rational, flexible,
bargaining style that encourages communication with their children.

Binuclear family. A family that spans two households, each headed by one
parent. The concept of the binuclear family structiure was developed by Ahrons (1979) to
describe the creation of two family households when parents divorce. The former nuclear
family structure that consisted of one nucleus (i.e., one shared household between two
parents) splits into two nuclei (i.e., two separate households), each of which is headed by
one parent from the former nucleus.

Cognitive hardiness. An optimistic, transfonnational coping style that
generates adaptive cognitions that reduce the importance or impact of perceived
demands, threats, or challenges on well being (Greene & Nowackl99S).

Divorce. The legal dissolution of a marriage (Webster, 1995).

[nterparental conflict post divorce. A multidimensional phenomenon that
encompasses factors such as frequency, style, content, and intensity of disharmony
between an individual's parents after their marriage has been dissolved through a divorce.

Nuclear family. This concept was developed by Ahrons (1979) to describe intact
families that have one nucleus or one shared household headed by two parents.

Parental authority. Based on Baumrind's (1971) three distinct prototypes of
parental authority— permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting.

Parental nurturance. Parental behaviors directed towards children with the intent
of providing physical or psychological nourishment. Examples of parental nurturance
include love, warmth, acceptance, approval, affection, support, and concern
communicated to children (Buri, Muiphey, Richtmeier & Komar 1992).

Permissive parenting style. Based on Baumrind's (1971) prototypes of parental
authority, permissive parents are relatively non-controlling in their interactions with their
children, and use a minimum of punishment in disciplining their children. These parents
make fewer demands on their children than other parents, and give their children as much
control as possible over their own activities.

Single-parent family created by divorce. A family structure consisting of one
parent who is divorced and the children from the marriage that ended in divorce, in
addition to other children from the parent's previous marriages or relationships.

Young adult child of divorce. Individuals between the ages of 18 and 25 years
whose biological parents have ended their marital relationship in divorce. Carter &
McGoldrick (1998) conceptualize the young adult stage of their family life cycle model
to include individuals between the ages of 18 and 25 years.

Organization of the Study

Chapter 2 reviews the related literature. Chapter 3 contains the research
methodology and includes: a statement of the purpose of the study, hypotheses,
description of relevant variables, data analyses, description of the population, subjects,
sampling procedures, data collection, and instrumentation. Chapter 4 contains the results
of the statistical analyses of the data. Chapter 5 discusses the results of the analyses, the
implications for theory and practice, the limitations of the study, and suggestions for
future research.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

Young adult children of divorce have not been studied extensively by social
scientists, particularly from a competence-based, strength-oriented perspective. In this
chapter, the literature examining family process variables that contribute to the
development of resilience in children and adolescents is reviewed. In addition, literature
on parent-child and parent-parent interactional variables that influence the adjustment of
offspring to parental divorce is discussed. Lastly, the literature on the contribution of
gender and age at the time of parental divorce to children's adjustment is examined.

Most early studies of family functioning have been guided by a deficit lens,
particularly those that examined outcomes for children and adolescents whose parents
have divorced. Similar to the underlying assumption guiding researchers from the
traditional medical model, early family researchers conceptualized healthy family
functioning by the absence of problems or symptoms. As a result, family processes that
contributed to positive outcomes for individual family members were seldom the focus of
earlier research. In addition, researchers often conceptualized individual or family
problems as symptoms of family dysfunction, instead of attempts to cope with normal
stresses or disruptive life changes (Minuchin 1974).

In contrast, contemporary family researchers have been interested in positive or
adaptive aspects of individual and family fimctioning, particularly in a context of

adversity. Research on resilience examines individuals who have successfully adapted
to stressful life events and family circumstances including (a) severe natural disasters
(Garmezy & Rutter 1985), (b) poverty (Werner & Smith 1982, 2001, Egeland, Carlson &
Sroufe 1993), (c) and combinations of high-risk factors (e.g., parental psychopathology,
paternal criminality). Surprisingly, few studies fi-ame the experience of parental divorce
within a resilience respective (Emery & Forehand 1994), despite the tendency of
researchers to conceptualize divorce as a major life stressor that can adversely affect
developmental outcomes for children and adolescents.

Family factors are often considered by researchers using a risk paradigm to study
the adaptation of individuals and families in a context of adversity. Researchers have
discovered that the organization of a family and interactions among family members can
function as either protective or risk mechanisms. Most studies in the divorce literature
focus on risk factors that adversely affect the adjustment of children to parental divorce
(e.g., post divorce interparental conflict, economic deprivation, lack of contact with the
noncustodial parent). In contrast, framing the experience of parental divorce within a
resilience research perspective shifts attention to the protective factors that may
contribute to positive developmental outcomes in children of divorce (Nfasten et al. 1991,
Walsh 1998).

Research on Resilient Individuals

Luthar, Ciccertti, and Becker (2000) define the phenomenon of resilience as those
dyiuunic processes that contribute to successfiil adaptation within a context of significant
adversity. Psychosocial resilience is conceptualized as an individual's capacity to not
only withstand adversity, but more importantly, to emerge strengthened and more

competent (Egeland et al. 1993, Walsh 1998). Researchers tend to operationalize
resilience as the positive end of the distribution of individual differences in
developmental outcomes in response to stress and adversity (Rutter 1987). The capacity
for resilience is viewed as a personality strength that develops over time, as opposed to an
innate childhood trait (Egeland et al. 1993). Researchers suggest that resilience results
from an interactional process between nature and nurture in the form of nurturing
relationships (Walsh 1998, Werner 1993). Specific measures used to conceptualize
resilience vary among studies (e.g., social competence, self-esteem, self-efficacy).

Understanding the development of resilience and the processes that protect
children and adolescents from the adverse psychosocial risks has been the focus of
research from a variety of disciplines (e.g., education, developmental psychology,
sociology, and medical) (Werner & Smith 2(K)1). Not surprisingly, parallel constructs
have emerged in the resilience literature that describe characteristics from these different
disciplines. As a result, resilient individuals are characterized by a common set of
characteristics: (a) sense of coherence (Antonovsky 1979), (b) learned optimism
(Seligman 1990, Hokoda & Fincham 1995, Garber & Flynn 1998), and (c) hardiness
(Kobasa et al.l982, Kobasa 1979). These constructs have been the focus of researchers
examining the buffering effect of personality strengths on the stress-illness relationship.

Wolin and Wolin (1993) developed the Challenge Model to investigate the long-
term consequences for adult children of alcoholics. They explored characteristics of
resilient individuals who grew up in a context of parental alcoholism, and yet were
leading satisfying and productive lives as adults. Drawing on qualitative data from
interviews with 25 'resilient survivors", Wolin and Wolin (1993) identified a set of seven

personality strengths that serve to protect a child's sense of self in a context of
adversity. These strengths include insight, morality, independence, relationships,
initiative, creativity, and humor.

Research on protective factors. Garmenzy (1991) classified three levels of
protective factors that contribute to the development of resilience in children and
adolescents: (a) individual factors (e.g., temperament, self-efficacy, internal locus of
control), (b) familial factors (i.e., warm, supportive parent; good parent-child
relationship, parental harmony), and (c) extrafamilial support factors. Consensus exists
in the literature of the significant influence of parent-child interactions on the
development of resilience in children. In their landmark research project, the Kauai
Longitudinal Study, Werner and Smith (1992) followed a cohort of 614 children bom in
Kauai in 1955 through age 40. This study was designed to examine the impact of
biological and psychosocial risk factors, stressful life events, and protective factors on the
development of children.

Werner and Smith (1992) found that the emotional support and positive
interactions provided by mothers in this study contributed significantly to the
development of resilience in this cohort of individuals, despite the tremendous adversity
that many of these children faced. Regardless of a child's gender, maternal nurturance
was positively related to the quality of adaptation and several other positive outcomes
(i.e., health status, competencies, self-efRcacy) that persisted into middle adulthood.
However, findings fi-om Werner and Smith's research (1982, 2001) support significant
gender differences that remained constant throughout their longitudinal research.

Overall, girls were more resilient than boys when facing a context of major biological
and psychosocial risks.

In another longitudinal study, Egeland and his associates (1993) examined the
development of resilience in children bom to 267 high-risk mothers whose income fell
below the poverty line. Unlike most studies that assess resilience using specific
outcomes (e.g., social competence), Egeland and his colleagues focused on identifying
salient patterns of behavior in children over time. Collection of data began in the third
trimester of pregnancy with mothers considered to be high-risk, and continued until the
child reached the age of 18 years. Assessments of the child's adaptation or resilience
involved multiple situations and procedures, and multiple sources of information (e.g.,
teacher or parent observation). Consistent with the literature on resilience, a positive
association was found between the presence of nurturing and supportive parent-child
interactions and the development of resilience in children.

Rutter and his colleagues examined epidemiological data derived from studies
conducted in the Isle of Wright and inner London (Rutter, Cox, Tupling, Berger & Yule
1975, Rutter, Yule, Quinton, Rowlands, Yule & Berger 1975). One of these studies, a
four-year longitudinal study of 10 year old children, examined the protective processes
that contribute to the development of resilience in children in contexts of high-risk.
Circumstances considered as high risk by Rutter and his colleagues included: (a) severe
marital discord, (b) low social status, (c) overcrowding or large family size, (d) paternal
criminality, (e) maternal psychiatric disorder, and (f) admission into the care of the local
authority.

Rutter and his associates used a subsample of children (n=103) from this study
who had at least one parent who had been in psychiatric care. In addition, the child's
home environment was characterized by a high level of interparental conflict. Children
in this subsample who identified a parent-child relationship characterized by the presence
of high warmth and the absence of criticism (i.e., a good relationship with a parent) were
compared to children in the same sample who lacked a good relationship with either
parent. Rutter and his colleagues found a significant protective effect of a good
relationship with one parent in a context of adversity. For example, children who
reported having a good relationship with one parent, despite having a mentally ill parent
and experiencing a high level of interparental conflict, were significantly less likely to be
diagnosed with a conduct disorder.

Wyman, Cowen, Work, and Parker(1991) used data fi-om the Rochester Child
Resilience Project (RCRP) to explore resilience in a sample of highly stressed urban
children 10 to 12 years old. Children who experienced four or more stressful life events
(e.g., death of a close family member) or circumstances (e.g., having a close family
member with a substance abuse problem) were assigned to one of two subgroups of
participants: stress-resilient (n=40) or stress-affected (n=37). Three screening measures
were used to establish group assignment status: (a) parents' assessment of the child's
adjustment in several domains (e.g., peer relationships and independence), (b) current
teacher's global rating of the child's adjustment in five categories relative to same sex
peers, and (c) previous teacher's global rating of the child's adjustment in the same five
categories relative to same sex peers.

Wyman and his associates (1991) used a battery of measures to assess
developmental outcomes associated with resilience in children (i.e., self-rated adjustment,
perceived competence, empathy, interpersonal problem-solving skills, adaptive coping
strategies, and realistic control attributions). Findings from this study provided evidence
of two significant protective parenting factors associated with resilient outcomes among
highly stressed children. First, a parent-child relatior\ship that was characterized by a
high level of nurturance and closeness significantly contributed to resilient child
outcomes in contexts of severe stress. Additionally, children whose parents demonstrated
positive, consistent discipline practices scored significantly higher on outcome measures
associated with resilience.
Research on Young Adult Children of Divorce

Early research on the effects of divorce focused primarily on identifying the
negative emotional, psychological, and behavioral outcomes for children and adolescents.
Recently however, researchers have begun to examine how the experience of parental
divorce affects individuals in young adulthood. In addition, studies have begim to focus
on the response variation across individuals whose parents divorce (Rutter 1987,
Hetherington 1991). This shift in focus represents a departure from earlier studies of
divorce that examined groups of individuals who differed on family structure (i.e.,
divorced or intact), thereby assuming the homogeneity of groups of individuals from the
same family structure. Moreover, use of a resilience paradigm to examine the
consequences of parental divorce allows individual responses to be conceptualized along
a continuum ranging from positive outcomes (e.g., enhanced competence, hardiness) to

clinical levels of problem behaviors or emotional difficulties (e.g., conduct disorders,
depression) (Hetherington 1 99 1 a).

Finally, framing the experience of parental divorce within a resilience paradigm
suggests that the experience of divorce is not a discrete event, but instead a process of
transitions in family organization, relationships, and interactions (Hetherington, Law &
O'Connor 1993). This conceptualization is consistent with the context of adversity
examined in the resilience literature, which focuses on individual adaptation to chronic
stressors, life challenges, and trauma. Similar to the mechanisms that enhance or reduce
the likelihood that an individual will become resilient in the process of coping with
adversity, adjustment to parental divorce is mediated by protective and risk factors when
viewed within a resilience perspective.

Consensus exists in the divorce literature that family interactional variables (e.g.,
parent-child relationship, interparental conflict) are more salient predictors of outcomes
for children and adolescents than family structure (i.e., divorced or intact) (Acock &
Demo 1994, Hess & Camera 1979). Researchers examining the consequences of parental
divorce for children have identified protective and risk mechanisms contributing to
individual adjustment that parallel those reported in the resilience literature. The nature
of the parent-child relationship exercised by custodial parents has been identified as a
protective factor in the adjustment of offspring to parental divorce in the divorce
literature (Demo 1992, Hetherington & Clingempeel 1992, Steinberg et al. 1991,
Wallerstein & Corbin 1989). In contrast, interparental conflict has been identified as a
risk factor that significantly contributes to child and adolescent outcomes in both intact

and divorced families (Amato & Keith 1991b, Barber & Eccles 1992, Cherlin et al.
1991, Grych & Fincham 1990).

Research on organizational processes. Weiss (1979) formulated a theory of the
organizational processes in single-parent households based on the qualitative data that he
collected in a series of studies conducted within the research program at the Laboratory
of Commimity Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Over 200 single parents from
diverse educational and occupational backgrounds were interviewed, many of whom
participated in multiple interviews over intervals of 6 months to a year.

According to Weiss (1979), the transition to a family structure headed by a
custodial parent tends to decrease social distance within the family, thereby creating less
patriarchal boundaries in the parent-child relationship. Findings from Weiss' research
suggest that parent-child relationships in single-parent households are characterized by
greater equality, more frequent interaction, and increased cohesiveness (i.e., heightened
intimacy and companionship). These findings are supported by the Arditti's ( 1 999)
research on mother-child relationships from the perspective of 58 young adult children of
divorce. Themes of "closeness and equality" emerged from the qualitative data that
Arditti (1999) collected to describe mother-child relationships in mother-custody
families.

Weiss (1979) also suggests that the authority structure in single-parent families
created by divorce tends to be more egalitarian as compared to the traditional hierarchal
parental coalition characterizing many nuclear families. Families headed by a custodial
parent are oflen characterized by a collaborative style of household management, greater
sharing of responsibilities by ail family members, and joint participation in decision-

making (Weiss 1979, Hetherington 1991b). This collaborative style of household
management can enhance children and adolescents' self-esteem by valuing their
contribution to the family, broadening their skills and competencies, and facilitating the
development of autonomy (Arditti 1999, Demo & Acock 1988, Maccoby, Buchanan,
Mnookin & Dombusch 1993, Stewart et al. 1997, Weiss 1979).

Research on the quality of the parent-child relationship. Regardless of the gender
of the custodial parent, consensus exists in the divorce literature of a significant
association between the quality of the parent-child relationship and outcomes for children
and adolescents whose parents have divorced. One of the earliest studies to examine the
quality of post divorce parent -child relationships as mediating the impact of divorce on
children was conducted by Hess and Camera (1979). Findings from their research
provide evidence that the quality of relationships among family members is a more
salient influence on children's behavior than family structure (i.e., intact or divorced).
Parenting characterized by high levels of warmth, numrance, acceptance, and affective
interaction was associated significantly with positive outcomes in offspring of divorce
(Hess & Camera 1979).

In a ten-year follow-up study to their landmark longitudinal research on children
of divorce, Wallersiein and Corbin (1989) investigated outcomes for a subgroup of 63
young women between 1 1 to 27 years of age whose parents divorced before the
beginning of their original research. They found that the quality of the mother-child
relationship was strongly associated with the level of fiinctioning for these young women
whose parents had divorced. Characteristics of positive mother-child relationships
identified in this study included mutual affection and support.

As a follow-up to their longitudinal research on divorcing families, the Stanford
Custody Project, Maccoby and her associates (Maccoby et al. 1993) studied parent-child
relationships of participants between the ages of 10 and 18 years. The findings of this
study are consistent with the divorce literature that supports the significance of the
quality of the parent-child relationship in contributing to positive adjustment for
individuals whose parents have divorced. Tschann, Johnston, Kline & Wallerstein (1990)
found similar results in their study of 351 children of divorce 18 years of age and
younger. Findings of this research provide evidence that the strongest predictors of
children's emotional adjustment following parental divorce are qualities of the mother-
child relationship, in particular, warmth and acceptance. Acock and Demo (1994)
analyzed data from the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) for more
than 4200 families. Their findings also underscore the significance of the quality of
mother-child relationship in predicting well being for children of divorce. The quality of
the parent-child relationship was assessed by measures of enjoyable interactions, support,
and involvement in activities.

Research on parental authority. Consensus exists in the divorce literature of the
significant association between parenting style in single-parent families created by
divorce and outcomes for children of divorce. Baimirind (1971) developed a model of
three prototypic patterns of parental authority— permissive, authoritative, and
authoritarian. Parents who demonstrate an authoritative parenting style provide clear and
firm direction for their children. They also tend to exercise their authority in a wann,
rational, flexible, bargaining style that encourages communication with their children.
The characteristics of parental authority in custodial households identified in the divorce

literature to be significantly associated with positive outcomes and adjustment in
offspring are similar to the authoritative prototype described by Baumrind (1971).
Regardless of family structure (i.e., divorced or intact), authoritative parenting is
associated with lower levels of psychpathology and higher levels of social and academic
competence in children (Baumrind 1991, Hetherington 1989, Steinberg et al.I991).
Findings from Wallerstein and Corbin's (1989) longitudinal study of children's patterns
of adjustment to parental divorce suggest that mothers who exercise parental authority by
setting firm but flexible limits significantly contribute to positive outcomes for their
daughters.

Similar results were found by Maccoby et al. (1993) in their longitudinal study of
the adaptive functioning of adolescents (n=978) between the ages of 10 and 18 years
from divorced families. Behaviors of the custodial parent that significantly contributed
to positive adjustment of their adolescent offspring included: (a) establishing and
enforcing standards of behavior, (b) monitoring their adolescent's activities, and (c)
inviting their adolescent to participate in joint-decision making with the parent on
issues concerning the adolescent's activities.

In their Virginia Longitudinal Study of Divorce and Remarriage, Hetherington
and her colleagues (1982) examined vulnerability and protective factors that contributed
to children's long-term adjustment to divorce and remarriage. In a 6-year follow-up of
this longitudinal research, Hetherington (1989) found that an authoritative parenting style
was significantly associated with high social competence and low rates of behavior
problems. Parental behaviors associated with an authoritative parenting style in this
study included warmth and firm, but responsive, control.

Steinberg and his colleagues (1991) investigated whether the positive
association between authoritative parenting style and adolescent adjustment is moderated
by the ecological context. They analyzed data from a socioeconomically and ethnically
diverse sample of about 10,000 high school students from both intact and divorced
families. Regardless of family structure, adolescents reared in homes characterized by an
authoritative parenting style scored significantly higher on measures of self-reliance and
academic performance, as compared to peers whose home enviromnents were not
considered authoritative. In addition, these adolescents scored significantly lower on
measures of psychological distress and delinquent behavior.

Research on post divorce interparental conflict. Regardless of parents' marital
status, exposure to high levels of interparental conflict during childhood and adolescence
have been associated with a plethora of psychological, emotional, behavioral, and
interpersonal outcomes in young adults (Amato & Keith 1991a, Zill et al.l993). The
effects of post divorce interparental conflict have been the focus of divorce literature
more often than any other predictors of child adjustment to marital dissolution. Garbcr
(1991) investigated the long-term effects of family structure (i.e., intact vs. divorced) and
interparental conflict on the self-esteem of 324 college undergraduates. Participants were
assigned to two groups on the basis of the level of interparental conflict reported (i.e.,
high conflict and low conflict). Regardless of family structure, individuals in the high
conflict group reported significantly lower levels of self-esteem as compared to
individuals in the low conflict group.

In a similar study of the relationship of family structure and family conflict to
adjustment in 285 college students (Nelson et al.l993), participants were assigned to

three groups on the basis of level of family conflict— low, middle, and high conflict
families. Young adult adjustment was assessed by measures of ego identity status and
psychological distress. A statistically significant relationship between level of
interparental conflict and adjustment was found. Regardless of family structure,
participants from families characterized by low to medium levels of interparental conflict
demonstrated higher levels of ego identity development and fewer psychiatric symptoms
as compared to individuals exposed to high levels of interparental conflict.

Weiner and her colleagues (Weiner et al. 1995) investigated predictors of
psychological adjustment in a sample of college students (n=427), 21% (n=90) of whom
were from divorced families. Psychological adjustment was measured by four
adjustment variables: (a) global life satisfaction, (b) psychological symptoms (e.g.,
somatization, obsessive-compulsiveness, anxiety, hostility, paranoid ideation,
psychoticism), (c) hopelessness, and (d) feelings of sadness and depression.

Predictor variables examined included "itiside family" variables (interparental
conflict and parent-child bonding), 'outside variables" (social support and negative life
events), and "individual variables" (gender and age at time of divorce). For young adults
from divorced families, indifference in the father was the most signiflcant predictor of
adjustment, followed by mother's indifference. The predictor set of variables ("inside
family", "outside family", and "individual") explained 31% of the variance in adjustment
in the group of young adult children of divorce. The incremental contribution of "inside
family" variables (interparental cotiflict and parent-child bonding) to the prediction of
adjustment was significant.

A statistically significant relationship between interparental conflict and
depressive symptomology was found by Schmidtgall and his colleagues (2000) in a
within-group study of female undergraduates from divorced families. Ensign et al.
(1998) examined the relationship between family structure and interparental conflict to
levels of intimacy and parental attachment in 101 college students. Results of their
research supported a significant inverse association between level of parental conflict and
intimacy in romantic relationships. In addition, this same study found a significant
inverse relationship between interparental conflict and closeness in parent-child
relationships. In other words, the higher the level of conflict between former spouses
after divorce, the less emotional closeness young adult children of divorce reported in
their relationships with parents. The findings of this study are consistent with those of
Tschann et al. (1990), who found a significant negative effect of post divorce
interparental conflict on the quality of mother-child relationships. Mothers who were
engaged in higher levels of conflict with a former spouse had more rejecting relationships
with their children following divorce.

Mechanic and Hansell (1989) collected data from 1067 during a three-wave,
three-year study of adolescents' health and well-being. They identified a significant
positive relationship between level of parental conflict and longitudinal increases in
depressed mood, anxiety, and physical symptoms. However, no significant association
between longitudinal changes in health outcomes and the experience of divorce,
separation from parents, or parental death was identified. Participants in this research
also reported that exposure to interparental confh'ct was significantly more upsetting than
the experience of parental divorce.

Neighbors and his colleagues (1997) recruited a sample of 243 adolescents and
their biological mothers to examine the long-term effects of parental conflict on
flmctioning in young adult children of divorce. Their findings supported a significant
inverse association between interparental confict after divorce and level of functioning of
male adolescents. Higher levels of post divorce interparental conflict predicted higher
levels of antisocial behavior and psychopathology for mate adolescents in their study
(Neighbors et al. 1997).

Research on gender differences. While significant gender differences have been
identified among younger children whose parents divorce (Hetherington 1979, Emery
1982), most researchers have found that these differences become fewer and less
significant as children from divorced families mature and reach young adulthood (Zaslow
1989). Weiner and her colleagues (1995) examined the psychological adjustment of 427
college students from divorced families, and found no signi5cant differences among
these young adults on the basis of gneder. In the second phase of a long-term study of
the effects of divorce on a cohort of Finnish adolescents (n=2139), Aro and Palosaari
(1992) found no significant gender differences between men and women from divorced
families at the age of 22.

Consensus that gender differences among children of divorce fail to persist into
young adulthood exists among longitudinal studies that use large data sets: Furstenberg &
Teitler (1994) analyzed data from the third wave of the National Survey of Children
(NSC) when participants were between 18 and 23 years of age; Amato (1988) used a
large (n=2544) data set to explore differences among 18 to 34 year old young adults;
Chase-Lansdale et al. (1995) used data from the longitudinal National Child

Development Study (NCDS). No significant gender differences among young adult
children of divorce were identified in any of the studies.

Mechanic and Hansell (1989) also used longitudinal data from a study of
adolescents' health and well-being, and results of their analyses did not support gender
differences for either the experience of divorce or tnterparental conflict. The research of
Zill and his colleagues (1993) was the only study located that supported gender
differences for children of divorce persisting into young adulthood. They analyzed
longitudinal data from the National Survey of Children (NSC) and found that young adult
women from divorced families were significantly more likely to have poor relationships
with their mothers as compared to their male peers.

Research on age at time of parental divorce. While consensus is lacking in the
divorce literature in regard to the salience of age at the time of parental divorce among
young adult children of divorce, most studies fail to provide evidence of significant
differences among young adult children of divorce in relation to an individual's age when
their parents divorced. No significant differences among young adult children of divorce
in regard to their age when their parents separated were found by Furstenberg and Teitler

(1994) in their analysis of data from the third wave of the National Survey of Children
(NSC). These findings are consistent with the research of Bolgar and his associates

(1995) who examined the long-term effects of parental divorce on interpersonal problems
for young adult children of divorce (N=592). Weiner and her colleagues (1995)
examined the psychological adjustment of 427 college students from divorced families,
and foimd that age at time of parental divorce did not significantly predict psychological
adjustment of young adult children of divorce. Schmidtgall et al. (2000) investigated the

relationship between interparental conflict and level of depression for 52 female
undergraduate students from divorced families. Their findings also failed to provide
evidence of the significance of timing of parental divorce and depressive symptoms.

Of those studies that identified a significant association between age at time of
parental divorce and measures of adjustment or fiinctioning for young adult children of
divorce, consensus was lacking in regard the direction of the association. Several studies
were located that suggest that experiencing parental divorce later in childhood or in
adolescence is associated with negative outcomes as a young adult. For example, Chase-
Lansdale and his colleagues (1995) used data (n=382 from divorced families) from the
longitudinal National Child Development Study (NCDS) and found significant
differences among young adult children of divorce. Young adults who experienced the
divorce of their parents during their adolescent years scored significantly lower on
measures of emotional adjustment than individuals whose parents divorced before
adolescence. These results are consistent with the findings of Grant and her associates
(1993) who found that age at time of parental divorce significantly affects young adults'
adjustment to college. College students whose parents divorced when they were in
preschool reported significantly less difficulty adjusting to college, as compared to peers
who parents divorced later.

However, other researchers have found evidence that children who experience the
divorce of their parents earlier in their lives are at higher risk for negative outcomes as
young adults. For example, Johnson and McNeil (1998) examined predictors of
developmental task anaiimient in college undergraduates from divorced families. Their
findings provide evidence that young adults who experienced parental divorce earlier in

childhood incur more difficulty individuating from parents and establishing intimate
peer relationships. Zill and his associates (1993) used the same longititudinal data from
the National Survey of Children (NSC) that Furstenberg and Teitler ( 1 994) used in their
research.

In contrast to the findings of Furstenberg and Teitler (1994), Zill and his
colleagues (1993) found a significant association between the timing of parental divorce
and several outcome variables. These findings suggest that young adults who
experienced parental divorce before the age of 6 are at a significantly higher risk of
having a poor relationship with their father, exhibiting problem behaviors, and dropping
out of high school. However, a weakness of this research design was the criteria for
categorizing the timing of parental divorce. Participants whose parents divorced were
grouped into only two categories on the basis of timing— experiencing parental divorce
before age 6, or between the ages of 6 and 16 years.
Research on Parental Nurturance

Specific parental behaviors and attitudes identified in the literature as protective
mechanisms in mediating the effects of parental divorce for children are similar to those
conceptualized by Buri (1989) as nurturing— parental wannth, support, love, approval,
attention, and concern. Consensus exists among studies of the significant and positive
contribution of parental nurturance to the development of self-esteem in adolescents and
young adults (Buri 1989, Buri, Kirchner & Walsh 1987, Buri, Murphy, Richtmeier &
Komar 1992, Hopkins & Klein 1993, Pawlek & Klein 1997, Watson, Hickman, Morris,
MiUiron & Whiting 1995). Unfortunately, four of the six studies located eliminated
participants whose parents were divorced (Buri 1989, Buri et al. 1987, Buri et al. 1992,

Pawlek & FGien 1997). The research of Hopkins and Klein (1993) included
participants who were raised by either biological or stepparents. Parents' marital status
was not obtained by Watson et al. (1997), however participation in the study was limited
to undergraduates whose parents were alive. No studies were located that investigated
the relationship between parental nurturance and any developmental outcomes in young
adult children of divorce.
Research on Parental Authority

Baumrind (1971) developed her theory of three prototypic patterns of parental
authority (i.e., permissive, authoritative, authoritarian) based on her longitudinal research
of childrearing— The Family Socialization and Developmental Competence Project (FSP).
Parents who demonstrate an authoritative parenting style provide clear and firm direction
for their children, and tend to exercise their authority in a warm, rational, flexible,
bargaining style that encourages communication with their children. In the divorce
literature, the characteristics of parental authority in custodial households that are
significantly associated with positive outcomes and adjustment in children and
adolescents closely resemble the authoritative prototype described by Baumrind (1971).

Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, and Mueller (1988) investigated the relationship
between parental authority and self-esteem in a sample of 301 undergraduate students.
Participants who parents had divorced, separated, or died were excluded from the study.
Undergraduate participants were divided into high and low self-esteem groups based on
whether their self-esteem scores fell in the upper or lower one third of the distribution.
Of those students in the low self-esteem group. 84% reported that both parents
demonstrated authoritarian parenting styles. Conversely, 89% of students in the high

self-esteem group described both of their parents as having authoritative parenting
styles. In a similar study, Herz and GuUone (1999) investigated the relationship between
parenting style and self-esteem in a sample of 238 Australian and Viemamese Australian
high school students. Their fmdings supported cultural differences in parenting styles
among these groups of students. Vietnamese-Australian parents were signiflcantly more
likely to demonstrate an authoritarian parenting style, and Anglo-Australian parents were
significantly more likely to be perceived as authoritative. In both groups of students,
those who perceived their parents as authoritarian reported significantly lower levels of
self-esteem.

Baumrind (1991) used longitudinal data for 139 adolescents in the Family
Socialization and Developmental Competence study to investigate the influence of
parenting style on adolescent competence and substance abuse. A significant and direct
association was found between authoritative parenting style and a high level of
competence on most attributes (e.g., individuation, optimism, cognitive motivation,
academic achievement) and abstinence from drug and alcohol use.

Ferrari and Olivette (1993) examined the association between parenting style and
the development of indecision in a sample of female undergraduate (n=86) college
students. The only significant finding was the direct influence of authoritarian parenting
on the development of indecision in female undergraduate students. Jackson, Bee-Gates,
and Henriksen (1994) investigated the influence of authoritative parenting on child
competencies and initiation of cigarette smoking in a sample of 937 students, ranging
from 3"* to 8* grade. Significant findings included a positive relationship between

authoritative parenting and children's competency levels, and an inverse relationship
between authoritative parenting and children's competency levels.
Research on Cognitive Hardiness

The concept of personality hardiness was first identified by Kobasa (1979) in her
research on individuals who remained healthy after dealing with high levels of stress.
She conceptualized hardiness as a constellation of attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral
tendencies comprising three components-commitment, control, and challenge. The
research of Kobasa and her colleagues supports the hypothesis that hardy individuals are
able to cognitively transform their appraisals of life evenU in a manner that reduces their
level of stress response (Kobasa 1979. Kobasa et al.l981, 1984). Therefore, hardy
individuals are able to remain healthy in a context of high levels of stress.

Early studies explored the moderating effect of cognitive hardiness on health and
psychological well being in contexts of high levels of stress. Kobasa's (1979) original
research examined the buffering effects of hardiness in the stress-illness relationship in a
sample of 161 middle and upper level male executives who experienced high degrees of
stressful life events in the previous three years. Her findings supported the hypothesis
that personality has a significant moderating effect on how individuals evaluate stressful
life events or circumstances, and cope with these challenges so as to reduce the risk of
illness. Kobasa and her colleagues (1981) found similar significant results regarding the
contribution of a transformational coping style in hardy male executives (n-2S9) in
decreasing the threat of illness in a context of stress. One criticism of the early research
of Kobasa and her colleagues is its reliance on Anglo-American, middle-class male
executives (Lambert & Lambert 1999).

Subsequent studies have examined the association between hardiness and other
psychosocial variables (i.e., type A personality type, cognitive appraisal, family
fiwctioning, lifestyle habits) hypothesized to moderate the stress-health relationship
(Greene & Nowack 1995, Nowack 1986, 1991, Nowack & Pentkowski, 1994, Rhodewalt
& Augustdottir 1984, Robitscheck & Kashubeck 1999, Sharpley, Dua, Reynolds, &
Acosta, 1995, Williams, Wieb, & Smith 1992). Researchers have conceptualized
outcomes of individual's abilities to cope with life stressor along a continuum of positive
and negative manifestations. However, support is lacking in the hardiness literature in
regard to (a) the nature of the relationship between hardiness and its components, and (b)
the hypothesis that individuals who are low in hardiness are at increased risk of
negative health and psychological outcomes (e.g., illness, job burnout, absenteeism,
lower psychological well-being, and lower work/life satisfaction) in a high-stress
context. Researchers suggest that inconsistencies in the hardiness literature concerning
the mediating effect of a hardy personality in coping with life stress may be the result of
poor operationalization of the hardiness construct by the original Kobasa measures (Funk
1992, Funk & Houston 1987, Hull, Van Treuen, & Vimelli 1987).

A review of the hardiness literature located only one study located that used a
non-adult population. Sheppard and Kaschani (1991) examined the relationship between
hardiness, stress, and gender to health outcomes in a population of 150 adolescents
ranging in age from 14 to 16 years. Among high-stress females, no significant
associations between hardiness and health outcomes were identified. However,
significant findings were found for two of the hardiness components, commitment and
control, in relation to physical and psychological outcomes among high-stress males.

CHAPTERS
METHODOLOGY

Statement oFPurpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of eleven variables on the
level of cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce attending junior
and 4-year colleges. The predictor variables included (a) gender, (b) age at time of
parental divorce, (c) level of nurturance of the mother, (d) level of nurturance of the
father, (e) level of maternal authoritativeness, (f) level of maternal permissiveness, (g)
level of maternal authoritarianism, (h) level of paternal authoritativeness, (i) level of
paternal permissiveness, 0) level of paternal authoritarianism, and (k) level of post
divorce interparental conflict.

In this chapter the research hypotheses, relevant variables, data analysis,
population, sample, and data collection procedures are described. Additionally,
instrumentation and methodology are discussed.

Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were evaluated in this study.

Ho(l): There is no significant association between the level of cognitive hardiness
reported by young adult children of divorce and gender.

Ho(2): There is no significant association between the level of cognitive hardiness
reported by young adult children of divorce and their age at time of parents' divorce.

Ho(3): There is no significant association between the level of cognitive
hardiness and the level of maternal nurturance reported by young adult children of
divorce.

Ho(4): There is no significant association between the level of cognitive hardiness
and the level of paternal nurturance reported by young adult children of divorce.

Ho(5): There is no significant association between the level of cognitive hardiness
and the level of maternal permissiveness reported by young adult children of divorce.

Ho(6): There is no significant association between the level of cognitive hardiness
and the level of maternal authoritativeness reported by young adult children of divorce.

Ho(7): There is no significant association between the level of cognitive hardiness
and the level of maternal authoritarianism reported by young adult children of divorce.

Ho(8): There is no significant association between the level of cognitive hardiness
and the level of paternal permissiveness reported by young adult children of divorce.

Ho(9): There is no significant association between the level of cognitive hardiness
and the level of paternal authoritativeness reported by young adult children of divorce.

Ho(IO): There is no significant association between the level of cognitive
hardiness and the level of paternal authoritarianism reported by young adult children of
divorce.

Ho(l 1): There is no significant association between the level of cognitive
hardiness and the post divorce level of interparental conflict.

Ho(12): There is no contribution of the variables (i.e., gender, age at time of
biological parents" divorce, perceived level of maternal and paternal nurturance,
perceived level of maternal and paternal permissiveness, perceived level of maternal and

paternal authoritativeness, perceived level of maternal and paternal authoritarianism,
and perceived level of post divorce interparental conflict of biological parents) to the
prediction of the level of cognitive hardiness of young adult children of divorce.

Design of the Study

The study used a survey research design. A set of six self-report instruments was
distributed to study participants. Five of the instruments (i.e.. Maternal Nurturance Scale,
Paternal Nurturance Scale, Maternal Authority Scale, Paternal Authority Scale, and Post
divorce Parental Conflict Scale) assessed participants' perceptions of specific behaviors
and attitudes observed in their biological parents. The sixth instrument, a demographic
questiomiaire, was used to obtain demographic data and to gather information regarding
the experience of parental divorce or of living in a single-parent family.

Delineation of Relevant Variables

Dependent Variable

Cognitive hardiness, the dependent variable in this study, is defined as "a multi-
dimensional construct consisting of internal locus of control (versus powerlessness),
commitment to work and life activities (versus alienation), and perception of life changes
and demands as a challenge (versus threat)" (Green & Nowackl995, p. 448). Hardy
individuals are characterized by a transformational coping style that generates adaptive
cognitions that reduce the importance or impact of perceived demands, threats, or
challenges on well-being (Greene & Nowack 1995). Therefore, an individual who has
developed a high level of cognitive hardiness would respond to stressful life events with
optimistic cognitive appraisals and actions directed towards those events.

The 30-item Cognitive Hardiness Scale (CHS, Nowack 1989) was used to
assess both positive and negative attitudes and beliefs about work and life that are
relatively enduring from day to day. This questionnaire contains items assessing
commitment towards work, family, community, and life; affective, emotional, and
behavioral self-control; and optimistic perceptions of change, challenge, and threat
(Nowack 1989). These dimensions of cognitive appraisal are similar to the three
components of hardiness originally proposed by Kobasa (1979) (i.e., commitment,
control, and challenge). In the current study, the instnmient was administered to
undergraduate students who may not currently be employed. Therefore, several
modifications were made to the CHS to increase its applicability to this research
population. The terms "work" and "job" were replaced with the term "school" in three of
the statements of the original CHS, and the term "school" was added to four of the
original CHS statements. Higher scores of cognitive hardiness represent a higher
prevalence of attitudes and beliefs associated with the existence of a hardy cognitive
coping style.
Independent Variables

Nine relational variables were assessed by the instruments in this study: perceived
level of maternal nurturance, perceived level of paternal nurturance, perceived level of
maternal permissiveness, perceived level of maternal authoritativeness, perceived level of
maternal authoritarianism, perceived level of paternal permissiveness, perceived level of
paternal authoritativeness, perceived level of paternal authoritarianism, and perceived
level of interparental conflict between biological parents post divorce. The two

remaining independent variables, gender and age at time of biological parents' divorce,
were obtained from the demographic questionnaire.

Perceived level of paternal and maternal nurturance. Parental nurturance is
conceptualized as behaviors directed towards children with the intent of providing
physical or psychological nourishment. Examples of parental nurturance include love,
warmth, acceptance, approval, affection, support, and concern communicated to children
(Buri et al. 1992). Bun's Parental Nurturance Scale (1989) was used to measure parental
nurturance from the point of view of a young adult child of divorce for both biological
parents. Two forms of the scale were used; one to measure the appraised nurturance of
the biological mother, and the other to measure the appraised nurturance of the biological
father. Higher scores indicate the greater the appraised level of the parental nurturance
measured while lower scores indicate a lower appraised level of parental nurturance.

Perceived level of paternal and maternal authority. Baumrind's ( 1 97 1 ) model o f
parental authority was used to classify the patterns of authority observed in each
biological parent by a young adult child of divorce. This model identifies three distinct
prototypes of parental authority-permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative. Based on
Baumrind's definitions, permissive parents are relatively non-controlling in their
interactions with their children, and use a minimum of punishment in disciplining their
children. These parents make fewer demands on their children than other parents, and
give their children as much control as possible over their own activities. On the other
hand, authoritarian parents that punitive measures to control their children's behavior and
enforce the directions given to them. These parents are described as detached, valuing
unquestionable obedience, and less warm than other parents. Authoritarian parents

discourage verbal give-and-take, and attempt to shape and control their children's
behaviors and attitudes whenever possible. Authoritative parents, the third parental
authority prototype identified by Baumrind, provide clear and firm direction for their
children, and exercise their authority in a warm, rational, flexible, bargaining style that
encourages communication with their children.

Bun's Parental Authority Scale (1991) was used to measure parental authority for
both biological parents from the perspective of a young adult child of divorce. This
questionnaire was developed for the purpose of measuring Baumrind's (1971) permissive,
authoritarian, and authoritative parental authority prototypes. Two forms of the scale
were used; one to measure the appraised authority of the biological mother, and the other
to measure the appraised authority of the biological father. Scores for each parent were
calculated for each of the three parental authority scales— permissive, authoritarian, and
authoritative. Thus, the PAQ yielded six separated scores for each participant— mother's
permissiveness, mother's authoritarianism, mother's authoritativeness, father's
permissiveness, father's authoritarianism, and father's authoritativeness. Higher scores
indicate the greater the appraised level of the parental authority prototype measured while
lower scores indicate the lower the appraised level of the parental authority prototype
measured.

Perceived interparental conflict of biological parents post divorce. Interparental
conflict of parents after divorce is a multidimensional construct that encompasses factors
such as frequency, style, content, and intensity of disharmony between a young adult's
parents after their marriage has been dissolved though a divorce. The Post Divorce
Parental Conflict Scale was developed by Sonnenbbck and Schwarz (1992) to measure

the type and level of parental conflict after divorce as reported from the position of
offspring. Respondents were asked to rate each biological parent's behavior towards the
other biological parent after their divorce, or while the respondent was growing up if their
parents remain married. Higher scores indicate higher levels of interparental conflict
while lower scores indicate relatively lower levels of interparental conflict.
Gender and age at time of parental divorce

A demographic questionnaire was used to collect information regarding
individual characteristics. The following variables were assessed: age, gender, age at
time of biological parents' divorce, race-ethnicity, type of current educational institution
(i.e., jr. college, or 4-year university), current GPA, highest level of education completed
by mother and father, biological parents' current marital status, custody arrangement,
whether either parent remarried, and age when either parent remarried. Participants were
also asked an open-ended question regarding any other information that they would like
to share with the investigator regarding parenting behaviors that they observed in either
parent, and how these behaviors might have affected their personality development and
how the participant copes with life stressors.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were computed for each of the continuous predictor
variables (i.e., age at time of biological parents' divorce, level of maternal nurturance,
level of paternal nurturance, level of maternal permissiveness, level of maternal
authoritativeness, level of maternal authoritarianism, level of paternal permissiveness,
level of paternal authoritativeness, level of paternal authoritarianism, and level of post
divorce interparental conflict). The frequencies of two categorical variables were

calculated: race-ethnicity, and highest level of education completed by mother and
father. Cronbach's ( 1 95 1 ) coefficient alpha was calculated for the revised Cognitive
Hardiness Scale to determine its reliability.

Correlational analysis was used to test the first eleven hypotheses. A correlation
describes the nature and degree of relationship between two variables (Huck, Cormier &
Bounds 1974). Multiple regression analysis was used to test the final hypothesis. This is
a statistical method for studying the association between a dependent variable and two or
more independent variables (Shavelson 1996). The multiple correlation coefTicient, ,
provided a measure of the proportion of variation in the dependent variable (i.e.,
cognitive hardiness) that is accounted for by the set of independent variables— gender, age
at time of biological parental divorce, perceived level maternal nurturance, perceived
level paternal nurturance, perceived level of maternal permissiveness, perceived level of
maternal authoritativeness, perceived level of maternal authoritarianism, perceived level
of paternal permissiveness, perceived level of paternal authoritativeness, perceived level
of paternal authoritarianism, and perceived level of interparental conflict between
biological parents post divorce. Another goal of the multiple regression analysis was to
determine what, if any, associations existed between an independent variable and the
dependent variable when the effects for all of the other variables were controlled.

The analysis of data for this investigation was accomplished through use of SPSS
10.0 Correlational and Linear Regression Analysis. A correlation matrix was generated
to present all the possible combinations of correlations among the independent and
dependent variables. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) was
calculated for each pair of the eleven independent and dependent variables. The

correlation coefficient (r) measures the nature and degree of relationship between two
variables. Variables are considered to be correlated with one another when there is a
relationship between them, that can be negative, positive, or non-existent (Hack,
Cormier, & Bounds 1 974). A negative correlation reflects an inverse relationship
between the two variables; in contrast, a positive correlation reflects a direct relationship
between the two variables. When the correlation coefficient (r) is equal to zero, no
systematic relationship exists between the two variables or a zero correlation is said to
exist between the variables. The range of possible values for the correlation coefficient
(r) is fi-om -1.00 (i.e., a perfect negative correlation) to +1.00 (i.e., a perfect positive
correlation). The absolute value of the correlation coefficient (r) indicates the strength of
the relationship between the variables. A dummy code for gender was used in the
correlation analysis in this study.

Multiple regression analysis was performed to determine the proportion of
variance in the dependent variable (i.e., cognitive hardiness) that can be accounted for by
the set of predictor variables. In addition, regression analysis was performed to calculate
the proportion of variance in the dependent variable that is accounted for by each of the
independent variables when the effects for all other predictor variables are held constant.
Use of multiple regression analysis is appropriate when analyses include correlated
independent variables or when the independent variables are indexed by continuous
measures (Funk & Houston 1 987). Additionally, multiple regression analysis is a more
sophisticated method of statistical analysis because of its capability to assess the effect of
each variable while controlling for the others.

Description of the Population
The population was composed of young adult children of divorce (18 to 25 years
old) currently attending a junior or 4-year college in the southeastern United States.
Carter and McGoldrick (1998) conceptualize the young adult stage of their family life
cycle model to include individuals between the ages of 1 8 and 25 years. Participants
were eligible if they had experienced the divorce of their biological parents at least 12
months before beginning college.

Sampling Procedures
Approval of this study by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University
was obtained before collecting data. Two different methods were used to recruit young
adult undergraduate students to participate in the study. The primary investigator
attended college classes to invite students to voluntarily participate in the study, or the
professor teaching a class in which a student was currently enrolled invited them to
participate voluntarily in the study. Students were invited to participate who were
currently enrolled in general education classes (e.g., introduction to sociology or
introduction to psychology) at either a 4-year university or a 2-year community college.
Professors offered to give students participating in the study extra credit in their
respective classes. The study was described as an investigation of the influence of
maternal and paternal behaviors on personality development and coping skills of young
adults. Completion of the questionnaires included in participants' packets was identified
as the first step in a learning activity to better understand how specific parenting
behaviors influence the way young adults think about their ability to cope with life
stressors.

Potential participants in the study were given printed information explaining the
purpose of the study and requesting their participation (see Appendix A). In compliance
with IRB research protocol, participants were informed of potential risks and benefits as a
result of participation in the study and asked to sign and return an informed consent form.
To ensure the anonymity of participants, the informed consent was collected separately
from the packet of questionnaires. Students who were invited to participate in the study
and given time during class to complete the questionnaires but declined the invitation
were given the opportunity to leave the classroom.

Of the 353 packets distributed, all were completed and returned to the
investigator. A total of 353 undergraduate students were recruited to participate in this
study, however only 1 10 met the criteria for this study, which included: (a) currently
enrolled in a junior or 4-year college, (b) between 18 and 25 years old, and (c)
experienced the divorce of one's biological parents at least 12 months before beginning
college. Students whose biological parents had remarried each other or another spouse
were eligible for inclusion in the study.

Subjects

The sample consisted of 110 undergraduate students who met the criteria for
inclusion in this research. About two thirds (68%) of the sample were female (n=75), and
the remaining third (32%) were male (n=35). Slightly over two thirds (69%) were
attending a 4-year university, while the third of the sample (31%) reported that they were
enrolled at a 2-year community college. The mean GPA wjis 3.1. The average age at the
time of parental divorce of the sample was 8 years old (see Table I). Most participants
(78%) reported that their primary residence following their parents' divorce was with

their mother. However, 14% of the sample reported living primarily with the fathers,
and 9% reported living equally with each parent after their parents' divorce (sec Table 2).

Table 1

Frequencies for Custody Arrangements

Custody arrangement Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Primary residence with mother 86 78.2 78.2

Primary residence with father 15 13.6 91.8

Shared residence with both parents 9 8^ 100.0

n=110 ~~~

Race. Of the 1 10 undergraduate students in the sample, 62% (68) were White.
The remaining sample was 17% (19) Black, 14.5% (16) Hispanic, 4.5% (5) Asian, and
2% (2) were grouped together as "Other." The ethnic diversity in this sample was slightly
greater than that of the student body of one of the 4-year universities that participants
attended: Caucasian (77%), Black (10%), Hispanic (4.5%), Asian (5.5%), and other (3%).
Table 3 includes the frequency distribution by race-ethnicity for the sample.

Parental Education. The highest level of education completed for participants'
mother and fathers is reported in Table 4 (mother) and Table 5 (father). Regardless of a
parent's gender, the highest level of education completed was high school, and about two-
thirds of participants' parents graduated from a junior college.

Table 2

Frequencies of Age at Time of Parental Divorce

Age at time of parental divorce (years) Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

11.9

23.9

8.2

32.1

1.8

33.9

7.3

41.3

7.3

48.6

8.2

56.9

4.5

61.5

1.8

63.3

2.7

66.1

4.5

70.6

3.6

74.3

4.5

78.9

2.7

81.7

2.8

84.4

3.6

88.1

11.8

100.0

n=ll0

Data Collection

Each participant in the study was given a separate packet of questionnaires, a
letter explaining the purpose of the study, and an informed consent form. Participants
were directed to respond privately and not to discuss their answers with each other until
the surveys have been sealed in their original envelope. Each participant was asked to
complete a demographic questionnaire, the Cognitive Hardiness Scale, two versions of
the Parental Nurturance Scale (one for each biological parent), two versions of the
Parental Authority Scale (one for each biological parent), and the Post divorce Parental

Conflict Scale if their biological parents are divorced. These assessments took
approximately 30 minutes to complete.

Table 3

Race-Ethnic Distribution of the Sample

Race-ethnicity Frequency (f)

Percent (%)

Cumulative f

Cumulative %

Caucasian 68

61.8

Black 19

17J

79.1

Hispanic 16

14.5

103

93.6

Asian descent 5

4.5

108

98.1

Bi-Racial, Other 2

1.8

110

100.0

n=IIO

Table 4

Maternal Education Freauencv Distribution

Mother's level of education Frequency (0 Percent (%)

Cumulative f

Cumulative %

Middle high school 7

6.4

High school 44

40.0

46.4

Junior college 23

20.9

67J

College 23

20.9

88J

Master's degree/PhX). 13

11.8

110

100.0

n=110

Table 5

Paternal Education Frequency Distribution

Father's level of education

Frequency (f)

Percent {%)

Cutnulfltive f

(^iimularive *Vn

Middle high school

4.5

High school

46.4

50.9

Junior college

14J

65.5

College

20.9

86.4

Master's degree/Ph.D.

13.6

110

100.0

n=110

Some participants were given the opp)ortunity to complete the packet of
questionnaires and entry form in class, and return them to the investigator or professor.
A participant's signed informed consent was collected separately fh>m the questionnaires
to ensure participant confidentiality. When participants were not given time in class to
complete the packet of questionnaires, stamped envelopes in which to return the
completed questiotmaires and informed consent to the investigator were given to
participants. The investigator was available to answer questions and process the
assessment in person or by telephone.

Instrumentation

Participants were given a packet of five questionnaires to complete for this study.
A demographic questionnaire was used to collect information regarding individual

characteristics: The following variables were assessed: age, gender, age at time of
biological parents' divorce, race-ethnicity, type of current educational institution
(i.e., 2-year college or 4-year university), current GPA, highest level of education
completed by mother and father, biological parents' current marital status, custody
arrangement, whether either parent remarried, and age when either parent remarried.
Participants were asked an open-ended question about any other information that they
would like to share regarding parenting behaviors that they observed in either parent, and
how these behaviors might have affected their personality development and how the
participant copes with life stressors. Four other instnmients were used; the Cognitive
Hardiness Scale (CHS), the Parental Nurturance Scale (PNS), the Parental Authority
Scale (PAQ), and the Post divorce Parental Conflict Scale (PPCS).
Cognitive Hardiness Scale (CHS)

The Cognitive Hardiness Scale (CHS, Nowack 1990, 1991) is a 30-item
questioimaire designed to assess the possession of specific attitudes and beliefs based on
the concept of personality hardiness attributed to Kobasa and her colleagues. The
Cognitive Hardiness Scale (Nowack 1991) was chosen due to its improved reliability and
validity in comparison to Kobasa's original Personality Hardiness scales. Drawing on
existential psychology, Kobasa (1979) conceptualized hardiness as constellation of three
relatively stable and inseparable components. The first component of hardiness,
commitment (as opposed to alienation), refers to an individual's ability to sustain
curiosity and feel deeply involved in life activities. Control, in contrast to powerless,
refers to a belief in one's ability to control or influence the events of their life experience.

The third component of hardiness, challenge, refers to a positive evaluation of change
as a normal life challenge and opportunity for personal growth.

These optimistic beliefs and tendencies comprise Kobasa's proposed hardy
personality style, which has been the focus of numerous studies for its protective effect
on the of stress-strain relationship (Kobasa et al.l982, 1983, Kobasa & Puccetti 1983).
Hardy individuals are characterized by a transformational coping style that generates
adaptive cognitions thereby reducing the importance or impact of perceived demands,
threats, or challenges on well-being (Greene & Nowack 1995). The research of Kobasa
and her colleagues provides support for the hypothesis that individuals who respond to
the challenges of work and life with hardy appraisals are physically healthier (Kobasa
1979, Kobasa et al.l981, 1982, 1983).

However, both Kobasa's research and measurement instruments have plagued by
numerous criticisms (Funk 1992. Funk & Houston 1987, Hull, Van Treuren & Vimelli
1987; Jennings & Staggers 1994). While it might appear that Kobasa and her colleagues
have conducted several studies of hardiness, most of her published research was based on
the same data set (Hull et al. 1987). In addition, near-significant interactions were
considered empirical evidence supporting personality hardiness as a stress moderator in
two of Kobasa's studies (Kobasa & Pucetti 1983, Kobasa et al. 1983).

Lastly, Kobasa's research on hardiness is plagued by several statistical problems.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) or analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) has been used
frequently in research designs that include hardiness, stressful life events, and measures
of other concepts (e.g., social support) as independent variables. However, previous
studies have demonstrated that hardiness is significantly correlated with both of these

'■'i

variables (Kobasa 1982, Kobasa & Puccctti 1983). Therefore, use of either of these

statistical techniques (i.e., ANOVA or ANCOVA) to examine the relationship among

hardiness, stressful life events, and other concepts (e.g., social support) violates the ,

assumption of independence among factors or dimensions (Glass & Hopkins 1 984, p.

445). Furthermore, the categorization of continuous variables (e.g., through median

spliu) so that they can be used in an ANOVA or ANCOVA research design can result in

a significant loss of information and this practice is undesirable (Funk & Houston 1987).

Several hardiness studies (Kobasa et al. 1981) have been plagued by this statistical flaw.

Other criticisms have focused on the validity of Kobasa's hardiness measures and
include: (a) use o f negative indicators to define and measure the presence o f hardiness
(Funk & Houstonl987, Hull et al.l987), (b) a retrospective design in the original study
(Hull et al. 1987), (c) questionable psychometric properties of some of the hardiness
scales (Hull et al.l987, Jennings & Staggers 1994), and (d) lack of report of content
validity for earlier hardiness scales.

While revised hardiness scales developed by Kobasa and her colleagues addressed
some of the shortcomings characterizing earlier instruments, all of the Kobasa hardiness
scales include a majority of negatively keyed items (Funk 1992). As a result, critics have
suggested that Kobasa's hardiness instruments inadvertently measure the negative
personality characteristic of neuroticism (Funk & Houston 1987). While
third-generation scales demonstrate improved internal consistency for the Hardiness
composite measure (« = .88), internal consistency for the Commitment, Control, and
Challenge subscales is less respectable (« < .70 for each subscale) ( Funkl992).

Nowack (1989) developed the Cognitive Hardiness Scale as an alternative
instrument to measure hardiness in response to criticisms of Kobasa's initial hardiness
instruments. The CHS has its roots in the empirical work of Lecourt (1980), Phares
(1976), and Antononvosky (1979). This 30-item questionnaire contains items assessing
commitment towards work, family, community, and life; affective, emotional, and
behavioral self-control; and optimistic perceptions of change, challenge, and threat
(Nowack 1989). These dimensions of cognitive appraisal are similar to the three
components of hardiness originally proposed by Kobasa (1979) (i.e., conunitment,
control, and challenge). However, the Cognitive Hardiness Scale includes items that
assess both positive and negative indicators of the hardiness construct, which may
minimize the conceptual and empirical problems identified in the Kobasa hardiness
measures (Funk & Houston 1987).

The CHS assesses attitudes and beliefs about work and life that are relatively
enduring from day-to-day. These include: (a) control-the belief that one has control over
significant outcomes in life, (b) commitment— a sense of commitment to one's work,
family, self, and hobbies, and (c) challenge-a perception of life changes as challenges or
opportunities for personal growth. Participants were asked to indicate how strongly they
agree with specific statements about their attitudes beliefs using 5-point Likert-type scale
where 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neither Agree or Disagree, 4 = Disagree, and 5
= Strongly Disagree. The CNS conceptualizes hardiness as a unitary construct, as
opposed to the Kobasa hardiness instruments that determine a composite hardiness score
calculated by the summation of the three subscale scores (i.e., commitment, control, and
challenge).

The CHS was developed along with two other coping-related scales (i.e., the
Coping Style Inventory and the Health Habits scale) for use in Nowack's (1989)
investigation of the effects of coping style and cognitive hardiness on physical and
psychological health status. During scale development, a combination of factor analysis
and rational procedures eliminated weak or redundant items. Item-scale correlation had
to be >.25 and <.50 to be retained. These psychometric guidelines were used to
maximize representations of different aspects of coping of each scale and produce
relatively independent scales (Nowack 1989). In the original study, the CHS
demonstrated respectable internal consistency reliability (alpha) of .83.

Subsequent studies using the CHS to measure cognitive hardiness provide further
evidence of respectable reliability and validity. The CHS demonstrated high test-retest
reliability over a period of 2 two-weeks (« = .95), moderate test-retest reliability after a
four-month period of time (« = .86), and criterion-related validity with diverse
organizational and self-report health outcomes in several retrospective and prospective
studies (Andrassy 1992, Schwartz et al. 1992, Nowack 1989, 1990, 1991, 1994).
Parental Nurturance Scale (PNS)

The Parental Nurturance Scale (PNS, Bun 1989) is a 24-item questionnaire
designed to measure parental nurturance &om the perspective of the individual evaluating
the nurturance received from each of their parents. Parental nurturance is conceptualized
as behaviors or attitudes directed towards children with the intent of providing physical
or psychological nourishment. Examples of parental nurturance include love, warmth,
acceptance, approval, affection, support, and concern communicated to children (Bun et
al.l992).

An individual's subjective perceptions of other's evaluations about one's self, as
opposed to other's actual evaluations of one's self (e.g., parents), are assumed to be more
salient in the process of assuming specific characteristics about one's self According to
Rosenberg (1979), parents are the primary agents influencing the development of these
"reflected appraisals" by their children. Therefore, an individual's global self-concept
reflects the assimilation of subjective interpretations of others' evaluations of one's self,
as opposed to actual evaluations of others (e.g., parents).

Several sources were used for development of statements related to parental
nurturance (Bronfenbrenner 1961, Schaefer & Bell 1958, Straus & Brown 1978).
Participants were asked to indicate how strongly they agree with specific statements
about the parental nurturance that he or she received from each biological using 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Examples of
items from the Mother's Nurturance Scale include: 'My mother seldom says nice things
about me,' 'My mother is often critical of me and nothing I do seems to please her,' and
'My mother enjoys spending time with me." Two forms of the PNS were
constructed— one to measure the appraised nurturance of the mother, and another to
measure the appraised nurturance of the father. The statements included on each form are
identical, however the wording for each statement indicates which parent's behaviors are
being assessed.

The initial 118-item PNS questionnaire was administered to 333 undergraduate
students (Buri 1989). Students who identified that one of their parents had died or their
parents were divorced or separated were excluded from the sample. The 1 1 8 statements
were evaluated for duplications, and 42 items were deleted on the basis of resutement of

other items. A revised 76-item questionnaire was administered to 177 undergraduate
students, and item-score/total-score correlations were calculated for each of the 76 items
(Buri 1989). The final version of the Parental Nurturance Scale included the 24 items
that yielded an item-score/total-score correlation greater than .70. The wording of the 24
statements was modified so that the final questionnaire contained an equal number (i.e.,
n=12) of positively-stated and negatively-stated items.

In another study of 1 56 college students, the Parental Nurturance Scale
demonstrated a high internal consistency reliability, as Cronbach's (1951) coefficient
alpha values were .95 for mother's nurturance and .93 for father's nurturance. Adequate
test-retest reliability over a period of 2 two-weeks was also supported (i.e., r = .92 for
mother's nurturance; r = .94 for father's nurturance) (Buri 1989). In this investigation,
both forms of the Parental Nurturance Scale were given to participants. Instructions for
completing the instrument requested that participants indicate how strongly they agreed
with statements for each of their biological parents.
Parental Authority Scale fPAO)

The Parental Authority Scale (PAQ, Buri 1991) is a 30-item questionnaire
designed to measure parental authority from the perspecitve of an individual evaluating
the patterns of authority exercised by his or her parents. The instrument is based on
Baumrind's (1971) model of three distinct prototypes of parental authority-permissive,
authoritarian, and authoritative parenting. The questionnaire items were designed to
measure the permissiveness, authoritarianism, and authoritativeness of parents as
phenomelogically appraised by their son or daughter. The PAQ assesses parental
authority using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly

agree (5). Two forms of the PAQ were constructed; one to assess an individual's
appraisals of their mother's parenting behaviors, and another to assess an individual's
appraisals of their father's parenting behaviors.

An individual's subjective perceptions of other's evaluations about one's self, as
opposed to other's actual evaluations of one's self (e.g., parents), are assumed to be more
salient in the process of assuming specific characteristics about one's self. According to
Rosenberg (1979), parents are the primary agents influencing the development of these
"reflected appraisals" by their children. Therefore, an individual's global self-concept
reflects the assimilation of subjective interpretations of others' evaluations of one's self,
as opposed to actual evaluations of others (e.g., parents).

Baumrind's (1971) model of parental authority describes three distinct prototypes
(i.e., permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative). Baumrind's describes permissive
parents as relatively non-controlling in their interactions with their children, and using a
minimum of punishment in disciplining their children. These parents make fewer
demands on their children than other parents, and give their children as much control as
possible over their own activities. On the other hand, authoritarian parents use punitive
measures to control their children's behavior and enforce the directions given to them.
These parents are described as detached, valuing unquestionable obedience, and less
warm than other parents. Authoritarian parents discourage verbal give-and-take, and
attempt to shape and control their children's behaviors and attitudes whenever possible.
The third parental authority prototype identified by Baumrind, authoritative parents,
provide clear and firm direction for their children, and exercise their authority in a warm,
rational, flexible, bargaining style that encourages communication with their children.

Initial scale development consisted of 48 questionnaire items constructed from
descriptions of the permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting prototypes
proposed by Baumrind (1971). Each item was stated from an individual's perspective of
authority exercised by his or her parents. An example of an item from the permissive
scale is 'My mother/father has always felt that what children need is to be free to make up
their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what
their parents might want.' An example of an item from the authoritarian scale is 'As I
was growing up my mother/father did not allow me to question any decision that she/he
had made.' An example of an item from the authoritative scale is 'My mother/father
always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that family rules and
restrictions were unreasonable.'

Twenty-one professionals (1 1 women, 10 men) from a variety of disciplines were
given the 48 questionnaire items, and verbatim descriptions for each of Baumrind's three
parenting prototypes (i.e., permissive, authoritarian, authoritative). Participants were
asked to evaluate each of the questionnaire items on the basis of its accuracy in
characterizing each of the prototypes. Items that failed to delineate clearly one of the
three parenting prototypes were discouraged from being categorized by the professionals.
When consensus existed among more than 95% of the participants that an item clearly
represented one of the three parenting prototypes, it was included in the final version of
the questionnaire.

Thirty-six of the initial questionnaire items met the criterion for inclusion in the
final Parental Authority Questionnaire, and 12 items were deleted from the original 48
items. Two-thirds of the remaining 36 items were endorsed by 100% of the professionals

evaluating the accuracy of the items in characterizing each of the parenting prototypes.
As a result, the revised 36-item PAQ has high content validity. Thirty of the 36
questionnaire items that met the inclusion criteria were included in the final version of the
Parental Authority Questionnaire. Ten items from each parenting prototype were
retained in the revised PAQ, and two forms of the questionnaire were constructed to
evaluate the parental authority provided by each biological parent. The PAQ generates
six separate scores for each participant— mother's permissiveness, mother's
authoritarianism, mother's authoritativeness, father's permissiveness, father's
authoritarianism, father's authoritativeness. Scores for each of these constructs range
from 10 to SO, and higher scores indicate a greater level of appraised parental authority
prototype measured.

The revised 30-item Parenting Authority Questionnaire was initially administered
to 62 undergraduates (Buri 1 99 1 ). Two weeks later 6 1 of the original participants
completed the PAQ again, yielding adequate test-retest reliabilities— .81 for mother's
permissiveness, .86 for mother's authoritarianism, .78 for mother's authoritativeness, .78
for father's permissiveness, .77 for father's authoritarianism, and.92 for father's
authoritativeness. In another sample, 1 85 undergraduate students completed the PAQ
(Buri, 1991). Highly respectable Cronbach's (1951) coefBcient alpha values were
obtained— .75 for mother's permissiveness, .85 for mother's authoritarianism, .82 for
mother's authoritativeness, .72 for father's permissiveness, .74 for father's
authoritarianism, and .85 for father's authoritativeness. Despite the small number of
items for each parental authority scale (i.e. 10 items), the reliability and coefficient alpha

values demonstrated by Parental Authority Questionnaire in this sample is very
respectable.

The discriminant validity of the Parental Authority Questionnaire was examined
in a study of 127 college students (Bun 1 991). Divergent responses to items from these 3
scales were demonstrated— mother's authoritarianism was inversely related to mother's
permissiveness (r = -.38, p < .0005) and to mother's authoritativeness (r = -.48, p <
.0005). Comparison of father's PAQ scores yielded similar results— father's
authoritarianism was inversely related to father's permissiveness (r = -.50, p < .0005) and
to father's authoritativeness (r = -.52, p < .0005). In addition, lack of a significant
relationship between permissiveness and authoritativeness was demonstrated, regardless
of gender— r = .07, p < .10 for mother's scores and r = .12, p < .0005 for father's scores.
Post divorce Parental Conflict Scale (PPCS)

The Post divorce Parental Conflict Scale (PPCS, Sonnenblick & Schwartz 1992)
was used to assess an individual's appraisal of their parents' conflict after divorce.
Previously developed instruments have only measured post divorce parental conflict from
the parents' perspective. The PPCS is the only available instnmient developed
specifically to assess an individual's appraisal of interparental conflict post divorce.
Consistent with the symbolic interactionist framework, an individual's perception of the
conflict between their biological parents post divorce is more influential than the parent's
self-report.

The PPCS is an 82-item self-report inventory that measures the type and level of
parental conflict after divorce as reported from the position of the child. The scale was
designed and validated for use with college students who reported level of conflict

between their parents after divorce across two time periods the first year after the
divorce, and the past twelve months. Respondents were asked to rate each parent's
behavior using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = "The event has never happened" to 5 =
"This happened every day").

Item content progresses fi-om low conflict and hostility to intense conflict and
violence. An example of a low conflict item is 'My mother discussed issues calmly with
my father*. An example of high conflict and violence item is 'My father threw things at
my mother*. The PPCS yields three subscales for each parent: verbal hostility, indirect
hostility, and physical hostility. Three scores are calculated for each subscale— one for
each parent, and a combined score of the sum of each parents score (e.g., mother's verbal
hostility, father's verbal hostility, and combined verbal hostility). The total scale for each
parent is calculated, and added together to determine the combined total scale.

Development of the PPCS consisted of two stages (Sonneblick & Schwartz 1992).
The first stage involved construction of statements to delineate the behaviors of divorced
parents that could be observed by sons and daughters. Ninety-five undergraduate
students rated the frequency of each behavior during the first year after divorce and
during the year before the study. Participants were required to have been at least 6 years
old at the time of their parents' divorce, and the minimum time since parental divorce
was two years before the study. Items were methodologically reduced through
elimination of unreliable statements, and the psychometric properties of the subscales
were assessed.

The second stage involved establishing the validity of the Post divorce Parental
Conflict Scale. A sample of 135 subjects was given the revised 82-item scale (39

questions for each parent), and these participants met the same criteria for inclusion as
the sample in the first stage. Alpha coefficients of internal reliability ranged from .80 to
.93 for the revised scale. The patterns of correlations among the three subscales and
other measures support the validity of verbal, physical, and indirect hostility as separate
constructs (Sonnenblick & Schwartz 1992).

Morris and West (2000) evaluated the reliability and validity of the Post divorce
Parental Conflict Scale in a sample of 127 undergraduate students. Participants met the
following criteria: (a) single, never before married; (b) between the ages of 18 and 24
years, (c) biological parents had divorced only once, (d) at least 6 years old at the time of
parental divorce, and (e) parents had been divorced for at least two years. The only time
period assessed for interparental conflict was the first year post divorce. The mean total
conflict scores were: mother = 78.97 (SD = 22.07), father = 74.78 (SD = 24.90, and
combined = 162.40 (SD = 45.43). High internal consistency was demonstrated by each
of these three total scores (i.e. mother total scale, father total scale, combined total scale)
as coefficients ranged from .88 to .96, with a mean of .92. Coefficient alphas for each of
the PPCS subscales exceeded the conventional standard of .80 (Nunnally & Bernstein
1994).

In this study, interparental conflict post divorce was assessed by use of the
combined total scale for the first year afier divorce. The total scale for each parent was
calculated by summing each of their scores for the three hostility subscales (i.e., verbal,
indirect, and physical), and each parent's total scale was added to calculate the total
combined scale measuring interparental conflict post divorce.

Demographic Questionnaire

A demographic questionnaire (see Appendix B) was used to collect information
regarding individual characteristics. The variables included age, gender, age at time of
biological parents' divorce, race-ethnicity, type of current educational institution (i.e., jr.
college, or 4- year university), current GPA, highest level of education completed by
mother and father, biological parents' current marital status, custody arrangements,
whether either parent remarried, and age when either parent remarried. Participants were
also asked an open-ended question regarding any other information that they would like
to share with the investigator regarding parenting behaviors that they observed in either
parent, and how these behaviors might have affected their personality development or
how they cope with life stressors.

CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Analysis Procedures

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of eleven variables on
cognitive hardiness among young adult children of divorce. Nine of these variables
focused on aspects of parent-child and parent-parent interaction reported by the young
adult child of divorce: (a) level of nurturance of the mother, (b) level of nurturance of the
father, (c) level of maternal authoritativeness, (d) level of maternal permissiveness, (e)
level of maternal authoritarianism, (0 level of paternal authoritativeness, (g) level of
paternal permissiveness, (h) level of paternal authoritarianism, and (i) level of post
divorce interparental conflict. The influence of two other variables, gender and age at
time of parental divorce, were also examined in relation to the development of cognitive
hardiness in young adult children of divorce.

The sample for this study of young adult children of divorce was composed of
college students between the ages of 18 and 25 years whose biological parents were
divorced at least 12 months before their participation in this study. Participants were
enrolled in classes in either a 2-year or 4-year college. Specifically, cognitive hardiness
was assessed by the Cognitive Hardiness Scale (CHS, Nowack, 1990,1991). Six
questions were modified fix>m the original CHS instrument to be more applicable to a
college student population. For example, the original statement, "my involvement in non-
work activities and hobbies provides me with a sense of meaning and purpose", was

modified to, "my involvement in non-school activities and hobbies provides me with a
sense of meaning and purpose."

The level of nurturance for each of the participant's biological parents was
measured by the Parental Nurturance Scale (PNS, Buri 1989). Two forms of the PNS
were used to measure an individual's perception of paternal niulurance and maternal
nurturance. Baumrind's (1971) three parental authority prototypes (i.e., permissive,
authoritarian, and authoritative) were assessed using Buri's (1991) Parental Authority
Scale. Two forms of the PAQ were given to participants so as to measure separately
paternal and maternal permissiveness, paternal and maternal authoritarianism, and
paternal and maternal authoritativeness as observed by a yoimg adult child of divorce.

Interparental conflict was measured by the Post divorce Parental Conflict Scale
(PPCS, Sonnenblick & Schwartz 1992). Two forms of the PPCS were given to
participants to measure the type and level of parental conflict observed separately for
each biological parent. The PPCS scores for each parent were added together to create a
composite post divorce interparental conflict score. Lastly, a demographic questionnaire
was created for this investigation to collect information regarding individual
characteristics. Two of these variables, gender and age at time of divorce, were used in
the analysis.

The analysis of data for this investigation was accomplished through use of SAS
10.0 Correlational and Regression Analysis. Descriptive statistics were computed for
each of the continuous independent variables (i.e., age at time of parental divorce, level
of maternal nurturance, level of paternal nurturance, level of maternal permissiveness,
level of maternal authoritativeness, level of maternal authoritarianism, level of paternal

permissiveness, level of paternal authoritativeness, level of paternal authoritarianism,
and level of post divorce interparental conflict). These descriptive statistics are presented
in Table 6.

Table 6

Means and Standard Deviations of Independent and Dependent Variables

Variable Range

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Age at divorce

7.83

5.51

Maternal nurturance

120

97.75

23.66

Paternal nurturance

its

'>S 60

Maternal authoritarianism

31.32

7.49

Maternal permissiveness

25.08

6.22

Maternal authoritativeness

33.66

8.25

Paternal authoritarianism

31.66

7.19

Paternal permissiveness

26.08

6.93

Paternal authoritativeness

31.53

734

Interparental conflict

177

66.92

44.98

Cognitive hardiness

126

99.45

11.13

n=110

The descriptive statistics for the dependent variable, cognitive hardiness, were
similar to the results of Nowack's (1990) initial development of the CHS. The mean

level of cognitive hardiness for his research sample was 97.32 and the standard
deviation in CHS scores was II .45. In comparison, the mean CHS score for the present
study was slightly higher (99.45) than Nowack's findings, however the standard
deviation was almost identical (1 1.13). The sample in Nowack's (1990) initial research
was comprised of 466 employees in professional and management positions, and the
mean age of the sample was 36 years. Sixty-two percent of the sample possessed at least
a 2-ycar college degree. While Nowack's sample was older than the sample in this
research, the descriptive statistics for the CHS scores of this study and Nowack's original
research are surprisingly similar.

It was impossible to compare the descriptive statistics for the level of maternal
and paternal nurturance reported by participants in this study with the findings from
previous research. Researchers utilizing the PNS to examine parental nurturance in
previous studies failed to report descriptive statistics for either of the measures of
parental nurturance (Buri 1989, Bun et al. 1987, 1992).

In regard to previous studies of perceived parental authority style reported by
undergraduate students, the descriptive statistics for maternal and paternal authority style
calculated in this study were similar to the results reported by previous researchers (Flett
et al. 1995, Gonzalez, Greenwood. & Hsu 2001, Wintre & Sugar 2000). The mean level
of maternal authoritarianism reported in this study was 3 1 .32, as compared to the range of
means of 27.44 to 31.28 reported in previous studies. Similarly, the standard deviation
for the reported level of maternal authoritarianism ranged Scorn 6.60 to 9.48 in previous
studies, and the standard deviation found in this study was 7.49, almost in the middle of
this range. The mean level of maternal permissiveness in this study (25.08) fell within

the range of scores found in previous studies (23.33 to 26.82), as did the standard
deviation (6.22), when compared to the range of 5.20 to 7.12 found in previous studies.
Lastly, the mean score reported for level of maternal authoritativeness (33.66) reported in
the current study fell near the lower range of mean scores (33.08 to 36.46) for maternal
authoritativeness calculated in previous research utilizing a sample of undergraduate
students. Interestingly, the standard deviation for the reported level of maternal
authoritativeness (8.2S) was slightly higher than any of the standard deviations reported
in previous studies (5.95 to 7.95).

In comparison, the means and standard deviations for reported levels of paternal
authority styles were similar to those found in previous studies utilizing samples of
undergraduate students. The mean level of paternal authoritarianism (3 1 .66) found in this
study was within the very small range of mean scores of previous studies (3 1 .36 to
32.89), however the standard deviation (7.19) was slightly smaller than the range of 8.07
to 10.61 characterizing previous research. In comparison, the mean level of paternal
permissiveness (26.08) reported by this sample was within the range of mean scores of
23.S to 26.8 reported by previous researchers. Similarly, the standard deviation for the
level of paternal permissiveness (6.93) in this sample also fell within the range of
standard deviations (5.7 to 7.96) reported in previous studies.

Surprisingly, the mean post divorce interparentai conflict score (66.92) reported
on the PPCS were in this sample was significantly lower than those reported in two
previous studies (i.e.,167.91 and 162.4) (Morris & West 2000, Sonnenbhck & Schwartz
1995). However, the standard deviation for scores on the PPCS (44.98) in this smdy was
very similar to those calculated in the two previous studies (i.e., 45.87 and 45.53).

Analysis Results

The goal of the correlational analysis was to test the first eleven hypotheses. The
intercorrelations (r) between pairs of the independent variables (i.e., gender, age at time
of parental divorce, level of maternal nurturance, level of paternal nurturance, level of
maternal permissiveness, level of maternal authoritativeness, level of maternal
authoritarianism, level of paternal permissiveness, level of paternal authoritativeness,
level of paternal authoritarianism, and level of post divorce interparental conflict) and the
dependent variable (i.e., cognitive hardiness) were computed for the sample. A dummy
coding variable was used for gender. These correlations are displayed in Table 7.
Table 7

Intercorrelations between Independent and Dependent Variables

Variable 12 3 45 6 78 9 10 11 12

1. HAR 1

2. GEN .07 1

3. AGE .15

-.04

4. M^^JR .20*

.02

.04

5.PNUR .35**

.07

.10

.21»

6. MTAR-.03

.01

-.16

-.33"

-.11

7. MPER -.05

.01

.06

.08

-.06

-.56»»

8. MTAT .15

-.01

.02

.73"

.15

-.34**

.10

9.PTAR .05

-.07

.10

.08

-.30**

.18

-.03

-.06

10JPER-.14

.18

-.18

-.07

.07

.18

.01

-.51*' 1

11.PTAT .06

.04

.10

31"

.70**

-.14

-.06

.33»»

-.27»* -.07

I2.CONF-.06

-.13

.15

-.21*

-.25**

.12

.10

-32**

.22* -.01

• B<.05 (2-tailed); e<.01 (2-lailed); n=l 10

NOTE: HAR = cognitive hardiness; GEN = gender, AGE = age at time of parental divorce;
MNUR = maternal nurturance; PNUR = paternal nurturance; MTAR = maternal
authoritarianism; MPER = maternal permissiveness; MTAT = maternal authoritativeness; PTAR
= paternal authoritarianism; PPER = paternal permissiveness; PTAT = paternal
authoritativeness; CONF = post divorce interparental conflict.

A number of significant correlations among independent and dependent variables
were identified. Nine correlations among variables were significant at the p<.01 level.
The strongest of these was the positive relationship identified between maternal
nurturance and maternal authoritativeness (r = .73). Only slightly weaker in magnitude
was the positive association between paternal nurturance and the level of paternal
authoritativeness (r = .70). A significant relationship was also identified between
parental nurturance and the level of authoritarianism for each parent. The correlation
between paternal nurturance and paternal authoritarianism was found to be -.30, while the
correlation between maternal nurturance and maternal authoritarianism was calculated to
be -.33. For each of these relationships, an increase in the level of parental nurturance
was associated with a corresponding decrease in the level of parental authoritarianism
that reached significance at the q<.01 level.

Surprisingly, the relationship between the level of maternal nurturance and
paternal authoritativeness also reached significance at the e<.01 level. For an increase in
the level of maternal nurturance, there was a corresponding increase in the level of
paternal authoritativeness (r = Jl). Two additional correlations reached significance for
relationships between maternal and paternal variables: maternal and paternal
authoritativeness (r = .33, E<.01), and maternal nurturance and paternal nurturance (r =
.21,E<.05).

Several intercorrelations among parental authority styles reported for each parent
as well as those between parents were significant at the p<.01 level. First, a negative
association was identified between the level of parental permissiveness and parental

authoritarianism for both mothers and fathers. For example, the correlation between
paternal permissiveness and paternal authoritarianism was -.5 1 . Of a similar magnitude
was the association between maternal permissiveness and maternal authoritarianism
(r = -.56). For each of these relationships, an increase in the level of parental
permissiveness was associated with a corresponding significant decrease in the level of
parental authoritarianism reported. In addition, the correlations between parental
authoritativeness and authoritarianism reached significance at the e<.01 level. The
relationships were of similar strength and direction for each parent: maternal
authoritativeness and authoritarianism (r = -.34), paternal authoritativeness and
authoritarianism (r = -.27).

Five intercorrelations reached significance for interparental conflict: maternal
nurturance (r = -.21, p<.05), paternal nurturance (r = -.25, p<.0 1 ), maternal
authoritativeness (r = -.32, p<.01), paternal authoritarianism (r = .22, p<.05), and paternal
authoritativeness (r = -.23, p<.05). Finally, both of the parental nurturance variables
were significantly correlated with cognitive hardiness: maternal nurturance (r = .20,
p<.05), and paternal nurturance (r = .35, p<.01).

A regression model was developed to determine what, if any, relationship existed
between the set of independent variables and the dependent variable, cognitive hardiness.
This analysis can be conducted globally by evaluating the entire model, or by conducting
an analysis for each individual variable when the effects for all other variables arc held
constant. Cognitive hardiness was designated as the dependent variable in this model.
The independent variables included gender, age at time of biological parental divorce,
perceived level of maternal nurturance, perceived level of paternal nurturance, perceived

level of maternal permissiveness, perceived level of maternal authoritarianism,
perceived level of matemal authoritativeness, perceived level of paternal permissiveness,
perceived level of paternal authoritarianism, perceived level of paternal authoritativeness,
and perceived level of intetparental conflict post divorce as independent variables.

The regression coefficient (?}) provides information regarding the direction of the
relationship between the dependent variable and each independent variable. A positive
coefficient indicates that an increase in the independent variable results in an increase in
the dependent variable. A negative coefficient indicates that an increase in the
independent variable results in a decrease in the dependent variable. The absolute value
of the regression coefficient provides information regarding the degree to which a change
in the independent variable affects a change in the dependent variable.

For the purposes of determining levels of statistical significance, a Type I error
rate of .05 was established. A decision to accept or reject the specific null research
hypothesis was based on this predetermined attained significance level. Source data were
rounded to the nearest hundredth.

Post hoc analyses were conducted to determine possible mediating effects. Two
models were created to investigate whether the mediating effects existed for two
dependent variables: paternal nurturance and paternal authoritativeness. In the model
investigating mediating effects for paternal nurturance, the independent variables were
level of paternal permissiveness, level of paternal authoritativeness, level of paternal
authoritarianism, gender, age at time of parental divorce, and level of interparental
conflict (see Table 9). The independent variables in the model investigating mediating
effects for paternal authoritativeness included: level of paternal nurturance, gender, age at

time of parental divorce, level of paternal authoritariaiusm, level of paternal
permissiveness, and level of interparental conflict (see Table 10). Table 8 describes the
specific variables for the regression models in this investigation.

The goal of regression analysis was to determine what, if any, relationship existed
between the set of predictor variables and the dependent variable (i.e., cognitive
hardiness); and what, if any, relationships existed between an independent variable
and the dependent variable when the effects for all of the other variables were controlled.
Gender, age at time of parental divorce, the level of nurturance of the mother, the level of
nurturance of the father, the style of maternal authority, the style of paternal authority,
and the level of post divorce interparental divorce comprised the independent variables in
the regression analysis. The output variable was the level of cognitive hardiness. The
main effects equation was significant (F=3.162, g>F=.0Ol) with this model accounting
for 27% (R'=.266) of the variance in the level of cognitive hardiness. Table 8 shows the
sources of variance in the model.

This investigation was also designed to examine what, if any, relationships
existed between each independent variable and the dependent variable when the effects
for all of the other variables were controlled. Two variables were found to contribute
significantly to cognitive hardiness scores on the CNS. The variables found to have
attained significance were level of paternal nurturance (t = 5275, c<.05) and paternal
authoritativeness (t = -3.693, E<.05). None of the other independent variables were found
to contribute significantly to the dependent measure.

Evidence regarding the strength and direction of the relationship between the
independent variable and the dependent variable is provided by examination of the

Table 8

Source Table to Test the Main Effects with CHS as Dqiendent Variable

Source df

Coefficient
Estimate

Standard
Error of
Estimate

t-value

p- value

Gender

.357

2.167

.163

.871

Age at parental divorce

-8.738E-02

.191

-.458

.648

Parental nurturance

Maternal nurturance

4.437E-02

.067

.665

.507

Paternal nurturance

.308

.058

5.275

.000*

Parental authority style

Maternal permissiveness

-7.188E-02

.210

-.343

.732

Maternal authoritarianism

3.971E-02

.191

.208

.836

Maternal authoritativeness

1 QQ

.lyo

1 . loo

Paternal permissiveness

-8.020E-02

.195

-.411

.682

Paternal authoritarianism

.161

.193

.832

.408

Paternal authoritativeness

-.756

.205

-3.693

.000*

Interparental conflict

1.979E-02

.026

.773

.441

•E<.05;n=110

regression coefficients. The results in Table 8 indicate that scores on the paternal version
of the PNS were positively associated with the level of cognitive hardiness measured by
the CHS. In other words, for every 1 -point increase in the level of paternal nurturance

measured by the PNS there was a resultant increase of .31 of a point on the CHS. In
contrast, the relationship between the level of paternal authoritativeness and the CHS
score was negative in direction. For every 1 -point increase in level of paternal
authoritativeness, there was a resultant decrease of .756 in CHS score. However,
examination of the t-values of each of these variables supports a slightly stronger
association between paternal nurturance and cognitive hardiness (t = 5.275), as compared
to the relationship between paternal authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness (t = -3.693)
(see Table 8).

Since paternal nurturance and paternal authoritativeness were found to be
significant in the initial regression equation (see Table 8), post hoc analyses were
conducted to determine possible mediating effects among the predictor variables. For
these analyses, two separate regression models were created. In the first model (see
Table 9), the dependent measure was the paternal nurturance score on the PNS and the
independent variables included in the regression eqimtion were: paternal permissiveness,
paternal authoritarianism, paternal authoritativeness, interparental conflict, gender, and
age at time of parental divorce.

For this model investigating indirect effects with paternal nurturance as the
dependent variable, the main effects equation was significant (F = 18.951, e<F.05) with
this equation accounting for 53% (R" = .530) of the variance in the level of paternal
nurturance. Table 9 shows the sources of variance in the regression model. Two
variables were found to be significant at the g<.05 level. Both paternal authoritativeness
(t = 8.372, E<-05) and paternal authoritarianism (t = -2.156, E<.05) contributed
substantially to the level of paternal nurturance repotted on the PNS. None of the

' 97
remaining independent variables in the equation were found to have a significant direct

effect on the dependent variable, paternal nurturance.

Evidence regarding the strength and direction of the relationship between an
independent variable and the dependent variable is provided by examination of the
regression coefficients (R^). The results in Table 9 indicate that the level of paternal
nurturance measured by the PNS was significantly affected by two of the independent
variables: paternal authoritarianism and paternal authoritativeness. The relationship
between paternal authoritativeness and paternal nurturance was found to be positive in
direction. In other words, for every l-point increase in the level of paternal
authoritativeness measured by the PAQ, there was a resultant increase of 2.176 of a point
in the level of parental nurturance reported on the PNS. A direct effect of paternal
authoritativeness was previously established by the regression equation in which
cognitive hardiness was the dependent measure. Therefore, results of the post hoc
analyses provide evidence that the level of paternal authoritativeness also has an indirect
positive effect on the cognitive hardiness as a result of its statistically significant positive
effect on the level of paternal nurturance. Results of the regression model for the set of
predictor variables supported a significant positive relationship between the level of
paternal nurturance and the level of cognitive hardiness (Table 9).

In this same regression model, the relationship between the level of paternal
authoritarianism and the paternal nurturance score was also found to be significant,
however, this relationship was negative in direction. For every I -point increase in level
of paternal authoritarianism, there was a resultant decrease of .672 of a point in the
paternal nurturance score of the PNS. Therefore, the results of this analysis reflect an

indirect effect of paternal authoritarianism on cognitive hardiness, since paternal
nurturance was found to significantly contribute to the dependent measure, cognitive
hardiness, in the original research model (Table 8). However, examination of the t-values
in the regression analysis provides evidence that the relationship between paternal
authoritativeness and paternal nurturance (t = 8.372) is stronger in magnitude than the
association between paternal authoritarianism and paternal nurturance (t = -2.156).

The dependent variable for the second regression model used in post hoc analyses
was paternal authoritativeness as measured by the PAQ. The independent variables
included in the regression equation were: paternal nurturance, interparental conflict,
gender, and age at time of parental divorce. The main effects equation was significant (F
= 25.525, E<.05) with this model accounting for 50% (R^ = .498) of the variance in the
level of paternal authoritativeness. Table 10 shows the sources of variance in the model.
Paternal nurturance contributed substantially (t = 9.366, E<.05) to the level of paternal
authoritativeness reported on the PAQ. None of the remaining independent variables in
the equation were found to have a significant direct effect on the dependent variable of
paternal authoritativeness.

A direct effect of paternal nurturance was previously established by the regression
equation in which cognitive hardiness was the dependent measure. Therefore, results of
the post hoc analyses are inconsistent with the findings of the initial regression analysis
that provided evidence of a significant negative relationship between paternal
authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness.

Table 9

Source Table for the Model to Test the Indirect Effects with Paternal Nurtxirance as
Dependent Variable

Source df

Coefficient
Estimate

Standard
Error of
Estimate

t-value

p-value

Gender 1

1.657

3.789

.437

.663

Age at parental divorce 1

.265

.325

.817

.416

Interparental conflict I

-4.376E-02

.042

-1.052

.295

Paternal permissiveness 1

-0.451

.313

-1.443

.152

Paternal authoritarianism 1

-0.672

.312

-2.156

.033*

Paternal authoritativeness 1

2.176

.260

8.372

.000*

E<.05;n=llO
Table 10

Source Table for the Model to Test the Indirect Effects with Paternal Authoritativeness as
Dependent Variable

Source

Coefficient
Estimate

Standard
Error of
Estimate

t-value

p-value

Gender

-8J20E-02

1.103

-.075

.940

Age at parental divorce

4.083E-.02

.084

.437

.663

Interparental conflict

9.735E-02

.012

-.808

.421

Paternal nurttirance

.196

.021

9.366

.000*

E<.05;n=llO

Hypothesis Testing

Twelve hypotheses were evaluated to test the theoretical assumptions of this
research. A linear regression model was developed and tested for statistical significance.
The results for each hypothesis are described in the following paragraphs and
summarized in Table 12.

Hypothesis 1 asserted that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce and gender. The results
of the correlational analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant association
between gender and the level of cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of
divorce. Therefore, no statistical evidence existed to reject the null hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2 stated that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce and age at time of
biological parents' divorce. The results of the correlational analysis did not demonstrate a
statistically significant association between age at time of biological parents' divorce and
the level of cognitive hardiness.
Table 15

Results of Hypothesis Testing

Number Hypothesis Decision

Hi There is no significant association between the level of Fail to

cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of Reject
divorce and gender.

H2 There is no significant association between the level of Fail to

cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of Reject
divorce and age at time of biological parents' divorce.

Results of Hypothesis Testing

101

Number Hypothesis Decision

Hj There is no significant association between the level of Reject

cognitive hardiness and the level of maternal nurturance
reported by young adult children of divorce.

H4 There is no significant association between the level of Reject

cognitive hardiness and the level of paternal nurturance
reported by young adult children of divorce.

Hs There is no significant association between the level of Fail to

cognitive hardiness and the level of maternal permissiveness Reject
reported by young adult children of divorce.

FU There is no significant association between the level of Fail to

cognitive hardiness and the level of maternal authoritativeness Reject
reported by young adult children of divorce.

H7 There is no significant association between the level of Fail to

cognitive hardiness and the level of maternal authoritarianism Reject
reported by young adult children of divorce.

H( There is no significant association between the level of Fail to

cognitive hardiness and the level of paternal permissiveness Reject
reported by young adult children of divorce.

H9 There is no significant association between the level of Fail to

cognitive hardiness and the level of paternal authoritativeness Reject
reported by young adult children of divorce.

Hio There is no significant association between the level of Fail to

cognitive hardiness and the level of paternal authoritarianism Reject
reported by young adult children of divorce.

Hi I There is no significant association between the level of Fail to

cognitive hardiness and the post divorce level of interparental Reject
conflict reported by young adult children of divorce.

Results of Hypothesis Testing

102

Number Hypothesis Decision

H|2 There is no significant contribution ofthe variables (i.e., gender. Reject

age at time of biological parents' divorce, perceived level of
maternal and paternal nuturance, perceived level of maternal
and paternal permissiveness, perceived level of maternal and
paternal authoritativcness, perceived level of maternal and
paternal authoritarianism, and perceived level of post divorce
inteiparental conflict) to the prediction of the level of cognitive
hardiness of young adult children of divorce.

Hypothesis 3 asserted that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness and the level of maternal nurturance reported by young adult children
of divorce. The results ofthe correlational analysis demonstrated a statistically
significant association between the level of maternal nurtiurance and the level of cognitive
hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce (r^ = .20, e<-05). Data from the
study supported the rejection ofthe null hypothesis.

Hypothesis 4 stated that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness and the level of paternal niuturance reported by young adult children
of divorce. The results of the correlational analysis supported a statistically significant
association between the level of paternal nurturance and the level of cognitive hardiness
reported by young adult children of divorce (r^ = .35, e<.01). Data fi-om the study
supported the rejection of the null hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 5 asserted that here is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness and the level of maternal permissiveness reported by young adult

103

children of divorce. The results of the correlational analysis did not demonstrate a
statistically significant association between the level of maternal permissiveness and the
level of cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce. Therefore, no
statistical evidence existed to reject the null hypothesis.

Hypothesis 6 stated that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness and the level of maternal authoritativeness reported by young adult
children of divorce. The results of the correlational analysis did not demonstrate a
statistically significant association between the level of maternal authoritativeness and the
level of cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce. Therefore, no
statistical evidence existed to reject the null hypothesis.

Hypothesis 7 asserted that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness and the level of maternal authoritarianism reported by young adult
children of divorce. The results of the correlational analysis did not demonstrate a
statistically significant association between the level of maternal authoritarianism and the
level of cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce. Therefore, no
statistical evidence existed to reject the null hypothesis.

Hypothesis 8 stated that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness and the level of paternal permissiveness reported by young adult
children of divorce. The results of the correlational analysis did not demonstrate a
statistically significant association between the level of paternal permissiveness and the
level of cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce. Therefore, no
statistical evidence existed to reject the null hypothesis.

104

Hypothesis 9 asserted there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness and the level of paternal authoritativeness reported by young adult
children of divorce. The results of the correlational analysis did not demonstrate a
statistically significant association between the level of paternal authoritativeness and the
level of cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce. Therefore, no
statistical evidence existed to reject the null hypothesis.

Hypothesis 10 stated that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness and the level of paternal authoritarianism reported by young adult
children of divorce. The results of the correlational analysis did not demonstrate a
statistically significant association between the level of paternal authoritarianism and the
level of cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce. Therefore, no
statistical evidence existed to reject the null hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1 1 asserted that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness and the post divorce level of interparental conflict reported by young
adult children of divorce. The results of the correlational analysis did not demonstrate a
statistically significant association between the level of interparental conflict and the
level of cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce. Therefore, no
statistical evidence existed to reject the null hypothesis.

Hypothesis 12 stated that there is no significant contribution of the variables (i.e.,
gender, age at time of biological parents' divorce, perceived level of maternal and
paternal nurturance, perceived level of maternal and paternal permissiveness, perceived
level of maternal and paternal authoritativeness, perceived level of maternal and paternal
authoritarianism, and perceived level of post divorce interparental conflict) to the

105

prediction of the level of cognitive hardiness of young adult children of divorce. The
results of the regression model provide evidence of a statistically significant association
between the set of predictor variables (F=3.162, g.>F=.001) and the level of cognitive
hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce. The predictor set of variables
accounted for 27% (R^ =.266) of the variance in the level of cognitive hardiness in young
adult children of divorce. Data from the study supported the rejection of the null
hypothesis 12.

Two paternal variables reached significance in the regression analysis— nurtur<mce
and authoritativeness (see Table 8). In regard to paternal nurturance, evidence was found
of a statistically significant association between the level of paternal nurturance (t=S.27S,
E<.05) and the level of cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce.
The regression estimate for paternal nurturance (.308) suggested a positive relationship
existed such that for every 1 -point increase on the paternal version of the PNS, a resultant
increase of .31 of a point on the CHS can be expected. Secondly, the results of the
regression analysis provide evidence of a statistically significant association between the
level paternal authoritativeness and the level of cognitive hardiness reported by young
adult children of divorce. This finding was consistent with the significant positive
relationship between paternal nurturance and cognitive hardiness identified in the
correlationalal analysis (see Table 7).

Evidence of a significant relationship between paternal authoritativeness and
cognitive hardiness was also found on examination of the results of the regression
analysis. In addition, the regression estimate for paternal authoritativeness (-.756)
suggested an inverse relationship existed such that for every 1 -point increase on the

106

paternal version of the PNS, a resultant decrease of .76 of a point on the CHS can be
expected. However, the correlational analysis not only failed to identify a significant
relationship between paternal authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness, but the
association that was identified between these two variables was positive (r = .05) and
very close to a zero correlation (see Table 7).

Post hoc analyses were conducted to investigate possible mediating effects among
the predictor variables. For the model investigating possible mediating effects of several
independent variables (i.e., different paternal parenting styles, gender, age at time of
parental divorce, and level of interparental conflict) on paternal nurturance, two
significant mediating effects were identified. The results of the post hoc regression
analysis provided evidence of a significant association between (a) the level of paternal
authoritarianism and the level of paternal nurturance (t=-2.156, E<.05), and (b) the level
of paternal authoritativeness and the level of paternal nurturance (t=8.372, E<.05).

For the level of paternal authoritarianism, the regression estimate (-.672)
suggested an inverse relationship existed such that for every I -point increase in the level
of paternal authoritarianism assessed by the PAQ, a resultant decrease of .67 of a point in
the level of parental nurturance on the PNS can be expected. Therefore, results of the
post hoc analysis provide evidence that the level of paternal authoritativeness also has an
indirect positive effect on the cognitive hardiness as a result of its statistically significant
positive effect on the level of paternal nurturance. Results of the initial regression model
for the set of predictor variables supported a significant positive relationship between the
level of paternal nurturance and the cognitive hardiness.

CHAPTERS
DISCUSSION

Overview of the Study

The purpose of this study was to assess the influences of eleven variables on the

level of cognitive hardiness in young adult children of divorce. The eleven variables

examined were (a) gender, (b) age at time of parental divorce, (c) level of nurturance of

the mother, (d) level of nurturance of the father, (e) level of maternal authoritativeness,

(f) level of maternal permissiveness, (g) level of maternal authoritarianism, (h) level of

paternal authoritativeness, (i) level of paternal permissiveness, 0) level of paternal

authoritarianism, and (1) level of post divorce interparental conflict.

Research Sample

A total of 1 10 undergraduate college students drawn from 3 different colleges
participated in the study. The study sample consisted of 35 males (32%) and 75 females
(68%). Two-thirds of the sample was Caucasian (62%); the remaining sample was 17%
Black, 14.5% Hispanic, 4.5% Asian, and the remaining 2% were grouped together as
"Other." The sample ranged in age from 18 to 25 years in compliance with the criteria
for inclusion in the study, and the mean age was 21 years. Slightly over two-thirds of the
sample were attending a 4-year college (69%), while the remaining participants attended
a 2-year community college (31%); the mean GPA was 3.1 . The smdy participants
reported that the mean level of education of both their mothers and fathers was
completion of junior college. Most participants (78%) reported living primarily with

107

108

their mothers after their parents' divorce, while 14% reported living primarily with their
fathers and 9% reported living equal amounts of time with each parent. The mean age at
which a parental divorce occurred was 8 years.

Association Between Cognitive Hardiness and Gender

Hypothesis 1 stated that there was no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce and gender. The results
of this research did not support the rejection of this hypothesis. Consensus is lacking in
the hardiness literature in regard to the relationship between hardiness and gender. A
persistent criticism of the hardiness research conducted by Kobasa and her colleagues
(Kobasa 1979, Kobasa et al. 1981, Maddi & Kobasa 1984) was its reliance on samples
comprised of White male executives. While one study of cognitive hardiness found
significant differences in cognitive hardiness by gender (Nowack 1988), most studies
have failed to find significant associations between cognitive hardiness and gender
(Greene & Nowack 1995, Nowack, 1986, 1991, 1990). Consensus exists among
researchers conducting longitudinal studies that gender differences among children of
divorce fail to persist into young adulthood (Amato 1988, Chase-Lansdale et al.L995,
Furstenberg & Teitler 1994, Mechanic & Hansell 1989, Weiner et al. 1995).

In their theoretical framework of the development of hardiness, Maddi and
Kobasa (1984) neglect to explore the relationship between gender and hardiness. Instead,
the salience of family atmosphere and parent-child interactions that contribute to the
development of hardiness in offspring are emphasized. A possible explanation for their
failure to explore the association between gender and the development of hardiness is a
lack of empirical data to substantiate the development of their hardiness theory. Instead,

109

Maddi and Kobasa (1984) formulated their theory based on interviews with male
executives, clinical experience, and research findings of other psychological studies.
Association Between Cognitive Hardiness and Aee at Time of Parents' Divorce
Hypothesis 2 stated that there was no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce and age at time of
parental divorce. The results of this research did not support the rejection of this
hypothesis. While consensus is lacking in the divorce literature in regard to the salience
of age at time of parental divorce among young adult children of divorce, most studies
reviewed fail to provide evidence of significant differences between young adult children
of divorce in relation to an individual's age when their parents divorced. The results of
this study are consistent with previous research on young adult children of divorce that
fail to identify significant associations between the timing of parental divorce and
outcome measures (Bolgar et aJ. 1995, Furstenberg & Teitler 1994, Schmidtgall et al.
2000, Weineretal. 1995).

The mean age at time of parental divorce for the sample in this study was 8 years,
and the standard deviation was 5.5 1 . While consensus exists among studies concerning
of significant association between age at time of parental divorce and outcome measures
for young adult children of divorce (Bolgar et al. 1995, Furstenberg & Teitler 1994,
Schmidtgall et al. 2000, Weiner et al. 1995), only one of these studies identified the mean
age at time of parental divorce and the standard deviation for their sample. In their
investigation of the psychological adjustment of college students from families of
divorce, Weiner and her colleagues (1995) identified a mean age at the time of parental
divorce of 9 years and a standard deviation of 5.26 for their sample of 90 undergraduates.

110

These descriptive statistics are very similar to those identified for the sample in the
current study.

Association Between Cognitive Hardiness and Maternal Nurturance
Hypothesis 3 stated that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce and maternal nurturance.
The results of this research supported the rejection of this hypothesis. That is, there was
statistical evidence to support the concept that maternal nurturance significantly
influenced cognitive hardiness scores reported by yoimg adult children of divorce. A
positive relationship between the level of maternal nurturance scores and cognitive
hardiness scores was substantiated by the correlational analysis (r = .20; B<.OS). In other
words, the greater the level of maternal nurturance, the higher the cognitive hardiness
scores reported by young adult children of divorce. However, it is notable that the
strength of association (r =.20) between maternal nurturance scores and cognitive
hardiness scores identified by the correlational analysis was weak (Huck et al. 1974).
Nevertheless, the finding of a significant relationship between maternal nurturance and
cognitive hardiness is consistent with Maddi and Kobasa's hardiness theory (1984), and
Weiss' (1979, 1991) theory of the structure and functioning of single-parent households
created by divorce.

Maddi and Kobasa (1984) emphasized the salience of the quality of parent-child
interactions and family atmosphere in the development of hardiness in offspring.
Parental support, encouragement, approval, and warmth are components of parental
nurturance identified by Maddi and Kobasa (1984) that contribute to the development of
the constructs of hardiness (i.e., commitment, control, and challenge) in children and

Ill

adolescents. These parental behaviors and attitudes are similar to the aspects of matemai
nurturance that the PNS measured.

The development of a sense of commitment to self and environment, the first
component of hardiness identified by Maddi and Kobasa (1984), results from the overall
degree to which parent-child interactions were characterized by parental support and
acceptance. According to hardiness theory, if a child's attempts to meet their needs (e.g.,
for safety and love) and potentialities (e.g., for intellectual or artistic ability) are met with
approval, interest, and encouragement, the likelihood that they will develop the
perception that their world and their self-concept are interesting and worthwhile
increases. This positive disposition towards oneself and one's environment constitutes an
individual's sense of commitment.

The second component of hardiness, a sense of control, refers to a child's
perception that they are not only able to influence their world but are willing to act on
that belief. Maddi and Kobasa ( 1 984) suggest that parents who provide their children
with moderately difficult physical and mental tasks to master (e.g., household chores,
cleaning and dressing oneself, attempting homework without parental assistance)
encourage a sense of independence and mastery in their offspring. Lastly, hardiness is
comprised of a sense of challenge, or the perception that life changes are signs of
•^chness and possibility" (Maddi & fCobasa 1984). Parents promote the development of
this disposition by encouraging their offspring to use their mental capabilities to view
challenges as richness and opportunity, in contrast to chaos and threats.

The most salient aspect of Maddi and Kobasa's (1984) theory of the development
of hardiness in children and adolescents is its emphasis on the quality of parent-child

112

interactions. Nurturing parental behaviors and attitudes directed toward offspring are
hypothesized to be the most significant positive influence on the development of
hardiness in children and adolescents. Therefore, given that the majority (78%) of young
adult child of divorce in this sample resided with their custodial mothers for more than
half of their childhood and adolescence, it was expected that a significant and positive
relationship would be identified between maternal nurturance and the level of cognitive
hardiness reported by participants.

The significant finding of a positive relationship between maternal nurturance and
cognitive hardiness in this study is consistent with the results of other investigations of
the relationship between maternal nurturance and other measures of personality strengths
(e.g., self-esteem) and adjustment among young adult children of divorce (Arditti 1999,
Evans & Bloom 1996, Hess & Camera 1979, Maccoby et al. 1993, Wallerstein & Corbin
1989, Zill et al. 1993).

Furthermore, Weiss (1979, 1991) purports that, as a result of decreased social
distance in single-parent households, the opportunity is created for parent-child
relationships to experience greater equality, more frequent interaction, and increased
cohesiveness (i.e., heightened intimacy and companionship). Overall, the mean level of
maternal nurturance (97.75) reported by young adult children of divorce was higher than
the mean level of paternal nurturance (88.4) reported in this study. Given that the mean
level of maternal nurturance reported by participants in this study was higher than the
level of paternal nurturance, and 78% of the sample resided with their mothers for more
than half of their childhood and adolescence, a significant positive relationship between
maternal nurturance and cognitive hardiness was expected. While this association

113

reached significance in the correlational analysis, it was not anticipated that the strength
of association between paternal nurturancc and cognitive hardiness in young adult
children of divorce (r = .35) would be almost twice the magnitude of the relationship
between maternal nurturance and cognitive hardiness (r =.20) (see Table 7).

Association Between Cognitive Hardiness and Paternal Nurturance

Hypothesis 4 staled that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce and paternal nurturance.
The results of this research supported the rejection of this hypothesis. That is, there was
statistical evidence to support the concept that paternal nurturance significantly
influenced cognitive hardiness scores reported by young adult children of divorce. A
positive relationship between the level of paternal nurturance and cognitive hardiness
scores reported by young adult children of divorce was substantiated by the correlational
analysis (r = .35; 2<.01). This means that the greater the level of paternal nurturance, the
higher the cognitive hardiness scores for young adult children of divorce.

This finding is consistent with Maddi and ICobasa's (1984) hardiness theory that
emphasized the salience of the quality of parent-child interactions and family atmosphere
in the development of hardiness in offspring. As was discussed previously, parental
support, encouragement, approval, and warmth are components of parental nurturance
identified by Maddi and Kobasa (1984) that contribute to the development of the
constructs of hardiness (i.e., commitment, control, and challenge) in children and
adolescents.

The finding of a significant relationship between paternal nurturance and the level
of cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce is particularly notable

114

in a context of divorce. Despite the fact that the majority (78%) of young adult child of
divorce in this sample resided with their custodial mothers for more than half of their
childhood and adolescence, the strength of the relationship between paternal nurturance
and cognitive hardiness (r = .35; p<.Ol ) was of greater magnitude that the association
between maternal nurturance and cognitive hardiness (r = .20; p<.05) (see Table 7) in the
correlational analysis. This association is of particular interest, as the overall mean level
of paternal nurturance (88.4) reported by young adult children of divorce in this study
was lower than the mean level of maternal nurturance (97.75). hi addition, the
relationship between paternal nurturance and cognitive hardiness reached significance in
the regression analysis, while the relationship between maternal nurturance and cognitive
hardiness did not.

While the finding of a significant and positive relationship between paternal
nurturance and cognitive hardiness is consistent with past research on young adults, most
of these previous studies relied on samples of young adults firom intact families. Paternal
nurturance has been shown to have a significant and positive association with personality
strengths and characteristics of young adults: self-esteem (Bun 1989, Buri et al. 1987,
1992, Pawlek & Klein 1997, Watson et al. 1995), and psychological adjustment (Weiner
et al. 1 995). Unfortunately, four of these six studies of the relationship between paternal
nurturance and personality strengths or adjustment of young adults eliminated young
adults whose parents were divorced from participating in the research (Buri 1989, Buri et
al.l987, 1992, Pawlek & Klein 1997).

However, in their study investigating predictors of adjustment to college in a
sample of undergraduates from divorced families, Weiner et al. (1995) found evidence of

IIS

a significant and positive relationship between two dimensions of paternal nurturance and
adjusnnent of young adults. These were the only parental variables to reach significance
in the multiple regression analysis; the maternal variables did not attain significance. The
results Weiner et al.'s (1995) investigation are similar to the findings of this study that
substantiate a significant positive relationship between paternal nurturance and cognitive
hardiness in a context of divorce.

Perhaps the significant positive influence of paternal nurturance on the
development of cognitive hardiness in young adult children of divorce in this study can
be attributed to the presence of cognitive hardiness in noncustodial fathers. Maintaining
a nurturing relationship with offspring afler divorce is particularly challenging for
noncustodial parents. Given that most (78%) of the young adult children of divorce in
this study resided for more than half of their lives with their mothers, fathers of
participants in this study would have been challenged to provide nurturance to their
offspring given the potential for numerous obstacles (e.g., time since the divorce,
remarriage, children from another marriage, continued conflict with the custodial parent,
developmental changes in offspring, financial challenges when offspring no longer
resided in the same city as the noncustodial father). Offspring of divorce may have an
awareness of the tremendous effort and commitment required of noncustodial fathers to
provide nurturance to their offspring when they no longer share a residence with their
children. As a result, paternal nurturance may be a more salient influence on the
development of the constructs of hardiness in offspring (i.e., control, commitment, and
challenge) in a context of divorce.

116

Paternal authority style and paternal nurturance. Post hoc analyses were
conducted to determine possible associations between paternal nurturance and paternal
authority style. The results of these analyses revealed that paternal nurturance had a
statistically significant positive effect on paternal authoritativeness {e<.01). This means
that as the level of paternal nurturance increased so did the level of paternal
authoritativeness. However, this finding is inconsistent with the results of the regression
analysis that supported a positive relationship between paternal nurturance and cognitive
hardiness, and a negative relationship between paternal authoritativeness and cognitive
hardiness. Both of these associations attained significance in the initial regression
analysis (see Table 8). It appears that one or more of the assumptions of the initial
regression may have affected the significance tests, as these results are inconsistent with
each other.

Post hoc analyses also revealed that paternal nurturance had a statistically
significant inverse effect on paternal authoritarianism. In other words, as the level of
paternal nurturance increased there was a resultant decrease in the level of paternal
authoritarianism. However, paternal authoritarianism was not significantly associated
with cognitive hardiness. Therefore, no indirect effect between paternal nurturance and
cognitive hardiness was supported through the association between paternal
authoritarianism and paternal nurturance.

Association Between Copnitive Hardiness and Maternal Permissiveness

Hypothesis 5 stated that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce and maternal
permissiveness. The results of this research did not support the rejection of this

117

hypothesis. Baumrind (1971) describes pennissive parents as relatively non-controlling
in their interactions with their children, and using a minimum of punishment in
disciplining their children. These parents make fewer demands on their children than
other parents, and give their children as much control as possible over their own
activities. In addition, Baumrind (1971) conceptualizes parents who demonstrate a
permissive authority style as parents as providing less nurturance in comparison to
parents who demonstrate an authoritative parenting style.

The lack of significance between maternal permissiveness and cognitive hardiness
found in this study is consistent with Maddi and Kobasa's (1984) hardiness theory. They
emphasized the salience of the quality of parent-child interactions and family atmosphere
in the development of hardiness in offspring. Parental support, encouragement, approval,
and warmth are components of parental nurturance identified by Maddi and Kobasa
(1984) that contribute to the development of the constructs of hardiness (i.e., control,
commitment, and challenge) in children and adolescents. Therefore, the negative
association between maternal permissiveness and cognitive hardiness identified in the
correlational analysis was in the expected direction (r = -.05), however this relationship
failed to attain significance. In addition, the relationship between maternal
permissiveness and cognitive hardiness could be more accurately described as a lack of
relationship, as the correlation coefiBcient is very close to zero. However, the results of
this study are consistent with previous studies that provide evidence of a negative
relationship between a permissive parenting style and personality strengths or positive
outcomes in young adults (Baumrind 1971, Buri 1989, Bun et al. 1988, Wintre & Sugar
2000) that fails to reach significance.

118

Association Between Cognitive Hardiness and Maternal Authoritativeness
Hypothesis 6 stated that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce and maternal
authoritativeness. The results of this research did not support the rejection of this
hypothesis. The lack of significance in predicting cognitive hardiness in young adult
children was unexpected firom both a theoretical standpoint, as well as in a context of the
literature on parenting style. First of all, the findings are inconsistent with both of the
theoretical frameworks guiding this research. Maddi and Kobasa (1984) describe a
parenting style that describes provision of tasks that are of moderate difficulty so that
offspring can (a) gain a sense of mastery, (b) learn that they can influence outcomes, and
(c) acquire a sense of competency through their perseverance. In addition, they identify
the salience of "parental warmth and support of youngsters' efforts to perform tasks,
express individuality, and construe the variation as richness and possibility" (p. 257). In a
similar theme, Baunuind (1971) describes an authoritative parenting style as providing
clear and firm direction for one's children, and exercising authority in a warm, rational,
flexible, bargaining style that encourages communication with one's children.

Weiss (1979) purports that the single-parent household headed by divorced
mother creates the opportunity for (a) a more collaborative style of household
management, (b) greater sharing of responsibilities by all family members, and (c) joint
participation in decision making. Therefore, given that 78% of the sample lived with
their mothers after their parents divorced, it was expected that maternal authoritativeness
would significantly contribute to the level of cognitive hardiness in young adult children
of divorce. While the positive association that was identified in the correlational analysis

119

between maternal authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness reported by young adult
children of divorce was in expected direction (r = .15), based on previous research and
the theories guiding this research, it was expected that this relationship would reach
significance. Instead, the positive association between maternal authoritativeness and
cognitive hardiness was very weak (Huck et al. 1974). In contrast, the findings from
previous studies substantiate a significant direct relationship between parental
authoritativeness and positive outcomes for young adults (Arditti 1999, Baumrind 1991,
Gonzalez, Greenwood & WenHsu 2001, Hetherington 1989, Maccoby et al. 1991,
Steinberg 1990, Steinberg et al. 1991).

Association Between Cognitive Hardiness and Maternal Authoritarianism
Hypothesis 7 stated that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce and maternal
authoritarianism. The results of this research did not support the rejection of this
hypothesis. Baumrind (1971) describes authoritarian parents as more dictatorial and
directive in their authority style. The results of her research provide evidence that an
authoritarian style of parenting is associated with low levels of responsiveness and
emotional support toward offspring (Baumrind, 1971). Therefore, the lack of evidence of
a positive relationship (r = -.03) between matemal authoritarianism and cognitive
hardiness in this study is consistent with Maddi and Kobasa's (1984) hardiness theory.
They emphasize the salience of parent-child interactions that are characterized by a high
level of warmth and support in promoting the development of hardiness in offspring are
emphasized by Maddi and Kobasa (1984).

120

However, while a negative association between an authoritarian parenting style
and cognitive hardiness was expected, the correlation coefficient was almost zero
(r —.03) and could be more accurately described as a lack of association between
maternal authoritarianism and cognitive hardiness. Therefore, this finding was
inconsistent with past research on young adults among which consensus exists in support
of a negative relationship between maternal authoritarianism and personality strengths of
young adults that reached significance (Bun 1989, Bun et al. 1988, Fumham & Cheng
2000).

Association Between Cognitive Hardiness and Paternal Permissiveness
Hypothesis 8 stated that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce and paternal
permissiveness. The results of this research did not support the rejection of this
hypothesis. Baumrind (1971) describes permissive parents as relatively non-controlling
in their interactions with their children, and using a minimum of punishment in
disciplining their children. These parents make fewer demands on their children than
other parents, and give their children as much control as possible over their own
activities. In addition, Baumrind (1971) conceptualizes parents who demonstrate a
permissive authority style as parents as providing less nurtiurance in comparison to
parents who demonstrate an authoritative parenting style.

The lack of significance between paternal permissiveness and cognitive hardiness
found in this study is consistent with Maddi and Kobasa's (1984) hardiness theory. They
emphilsized the salience of the quality of parent-child interactions and family atmosphere
in the development of hardiness in offspring. Parental suppK>rt, encouragement, approval.

121

and warmth are components of parental nurturance identified by Maddi and Kobasa
(1984) that contribute to the development of the constructs of hardiness (i.e.,
commitment, control, and challenge) in children and adolescents. Therefore, the negative
association between paternal permissiveness and cognitive hardiness parenting style
identified in the correlational analysis was in the expected direction (r = -. 14). However,
this relationship failed to attain significance. Consistent with previous studies, the
results of this study support negative relationship between a permissive parenting style
and personality strengths or positive outcomes in young adults that fails to reach
significance (Baumrind 1971, Burl 1989, Buri et al. 1988, Wintre & Sugar 2000).

Association Between Cognitive Hardiness and Paternal Authoritativeness

Hypothesis 9 stated that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce and paternal
authoritativeness. The results of this research did not support the rejection of this
hypothesis. The lack of significance in predicting cognitive hardiness in young adult
children was unexpected from a theoretical standpoint as well as in a context of the
literature on parenting style. First of all, the findings are inconsistent with Maddi and
Kobasa' s (1984) hardiness theory. They purport that a parenting style that provides tasks
of moderate difficulty encourages the development of hardiness in offspring. In addition,
they identify the salience of "parental warmth and support of youngsters' eflbrts to
perform tasks, express individuality, and construe the variation as richness and
possibility" (p. 257).

In a similar theme, Baumrind (1971) describes an authoritative parenting style as
providing clear and firm direction for one's children, and exercising authority in a warm.

122

rational, flexible, bargaining style that encourages communication with one's children.
Therefore, it was expected that a significant and direct relationship between paternal
authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness as reported by young adult children of divorce
would be supported in this research. Instead, the correlational analysis identified the
virtual lack of relationship between these two variables, as the correlation between
paternal authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness was almost zero (r =.05). Even more
unexpected were the results of the regression analysis that supported a negative
relationship between paternal authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness that reached
significance (t=-3.693; e<.05). That is, there was statistical evidence to support the
notion that the level of paternal authoritativeness significantly influenced cognitive
hardiness scores of young adult children of divorce in a negative direction. As the level
of paternal authoritativeness increased, the level of cognitive hardiness in a young adult
child of divorce decreased by .76 of a point.

The finding of a negative relationship between paternal authoritativeness and
cognitive hardiness as a result of the regression analysis was not only inconsistent with
the theoretical frameworks guiding this research, but also contradictory to the results of
the correlational analysis. In addition, this finding was not consistent with most previous
studies of paternal authoritativeness. Prior research supports a positive relationship
between parental authoritativeness and positive outcomes for yoiuig adults (Baumrind
1991, Gonzalez, Greenwood & WenHsu 2001, Hetherington 1989, Maccoby et al. 1991,
Steinberg 1990, Steinberg et al. 1991).

However, the results of the current research are similar to the findings of two
previous studies. Flett and his colleagues (1995) found evidence of an unexpected

positive relationship between self-oriented perfectionism (i.e., the tendency to raise one's
own goals and aspirations) and paternal authoritativeness that reached signiflcance.
These researchers were interested in the origins of perfectionism, as this personality trait
has been associated with a plethora of negative outcomes for individuals (e.g., anxiety,
depression, anorexia, depression, and suicide) (Flett et al. 1995). Wintre and Sugar
(2000) investigated the relationship between parental authority style and adjustment to
college. Their findings supported a significant negative relationship between paternal
authoritativeness on females' perceived academic adjustment. Similar to the current
study, a potential explanation of these unexpected findings could be the substantial
positive correlations that were identified among the independent variables (Wintre &
Sugar 2000).

Possible explanations for the unexpected finding of a relationship between
paternal authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness include: (a) the presence of several
outliers (i.e., extreme values) in the distribution of the residuals of the regression
analysis, and (b) a Type I error occurred that resulted in the incorrect rejection of the null
hypothesis. Examination of the scatterplot of the residuals confirmed that there were
several outliers (i.e., extreme values) in the distribution. Therefore, a possible
explanation for the unexpected negative association between paternal authoritativeness
and the dependent variable (i.e., cognitive hardiness) identified in the regression analysis
could be the presence of these outliers. Multiple regression is a type of analysis that is
highly sensitive to outliers (Pailant, 2001).

Another possible explanation for the unexpected direction of the association
between paternal authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness could be attributed to the

124

occurrence of a Type I error in the regression analysis. A Type I error occurs when the
null hypothesis is incorrectly rejected (Pallant 2001, Polit 1996, Tabachnick & Fidell
2001). In other words, the hypothesis that there was no relationship between paternal
authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce
could have been erroneously rejected based on the results of the regression analysis. In
contrast, the null hypothesis was retained as a result of the correlational analysis because
these findings did not support a significant relationship between paternal
authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness. Therefore, the results of the regression
analysis are inconsistent with the findings of the correlational analysis in regard to the
null hypothesis that there was no relationship between these two variables (i.e., paternal
authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness). The inconsistency between the findings of the
correlational and regression analyses seems to support the possibility that a Type I error
occurred in the regression analysis.

The regression equation included 1 1 independent variables, and it is possible that
the number of independent variables may have increased the risk of a Type I error.
Inclusion of too many potential predictor variables can reduce the utility of the regression
equation (Polit 1996). One of the goals of regression analysis is to identify the smallest
number of uncorrelated independent variables needed to predict a dependent variable
(Tabachnick & Fidell 2001). Therefore, inclusion of a large set of independent variables
in this study, almost all of which were not significantly correlated with the dependent
variable but intercorrelated with each other, may have increased the risk of a Type I error.

Paternal nurturance and paternal authoritativeness. Post hoc analyses were
conducted to determine possible associations between paternal authoritativeness and

125

paternal nurturance. The results of these analyses revealed that paternal authoritativeness
had a statistically significant positive eHect on paternal nurturance (t=8.372; Q<.OS) (see
Table 9). This means that as the level of paternal authoritativeness increased there was a
resultant increase the level of paternal nurturance. However, this finding is not consistent
with the inverse relationship between paternal authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness
identified in the initial regression model (see Table 8). Therefore, it seems likely the
findings of the post hoc analysis provide further empirical evidence that the fmding of a
significant negative relationship between paternal authoritativeness and cognitive
hardiness was the result of violation of one or more of the assumptions of the initial
regression model.

Association Between Coenitive Hardiness and Paternal Authoritarianism
Hypothesis 10 stated that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce and maternal
authoritarianism. The results of this research did not support the rejection of this
hypothesis. Baumrind (1971) describes authoritarian parents as more dictatorial and
directive in their authority style. The results of her research provide evidence that an
authoritarian style of parenting is associated with low levels of responsiveness and
emotional support toward offspring (Baumrind 1971). Therefore, the finding of a
positive relationship (r = .05) between paternal authoritarianism and cognitive hardiness
in this study is inconsistent with Maddi and Kobasa's (1984) hardiness theory. They
emphasize the salience of parent-child interactions characterized by a high level of
warmth and support in promoting the development of hardiness in offspring are
emphasized by Maddi and Kobasa (1984).

While a negative association between an authoritarian parenting style and
cognitive hardiness was expected, the correlation coefficient was almost zero (r = .05),
and could be more accurately described as a lack of association between paternal
authoritarianism cognitive hardiness. Therefore, this finding was inconsistent with past
research on young adults among which consensus exists in support of a negative
relationship between paternal authoritarianism and personality strengths and
characteristics of young adults that reached significance (Buri 1989, Buri et al. 1988,
Fumham & Cheng 2000).

Association Between Cognitive Hardiness and Interparental Conflict

Hypothesis 1 1 stated that there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce and interparental conflict.
The results of this research did not support the rejection of this hypothesis. While the
direction of the relationship between interparental conflict and cognitive hardiness was in
the expected direction (r = -.06), the relationship could be more accurately described as
non-existent since the correlation coefficient was almost zero. Therefore, this finding
was inconsistent with previous research on the effects of interparental conflict.
Regardless of parents' marital status, exposure to high levels interparental conflict during
childhood and adolescence has been associated with a plethora of psychological,
emotional, behavioral, and interpersonal outcomes in young adults (Amato and Keith
1991a, Zill et al. 1993). Studies of self-esteem, psychological adjustment, and clinical
symptomology in young adults provide evidence that the deleterious consequences of
interparental conflict persist into young adulthood (Garber 1991, Mechanic & Hansell
1989, Nelson et ai. 1993, Schmidtgall et al. 2000, Weincr et al. 1995).

127

One possible explanation for the lack of significant findings for post divorce
interparental conflict as a predictor of cognitive hardiness in young adult children of
divorce could be attributed to the significant intercorrelations between post divorce
interparental conflict and five of the other independent variables (see Table 7): maternal
nurturance (r = -.21), paternal nurturance (r = -.25), maternal authoritativeness (r = -.32 ),
paternal authoritarianism (r = .22), and paternal authoritativeness (r = -.23 ).

When two independent variables used in a regression are not independent but are
correlated, statistical analyses are unable to sort out the independent effects of each
variable (i.e., maternal nurturance and authoritativeness) on the dependent variable (i.e.,
hardiness). When regression coefficients are estimated using correlated independent
variables, the critical value of F required to reject the null hypothesis increases. As a
result, the likelihood that the regression coefficients will not reach significance is
increased and therefore the findings may be misleading (Polit 1996, Schroeder, Sjoquist,
& Stephan 1986).

Ln addition, the mean post divorce interparental conflict score (66.92) reported on
the PPCS were in this sample was significantly lower than those reported in two previous
studies (i.e.,167.91 and 162.4) (Morris & West 20(X), Sonnenblick & Schwarz 1995).
Therefore, the significantly lower post divorce interparental conflict scores in this sample
may be another possible explanation for the lack of sigtuficance in the relatiotiship
between interparental conflict and cognitive hardiness in tliis sample.

Association Between Cogiitive Hardiness and the Set of Predictor Variables

Hypothesis 12 stated tliat there is no significant association between the level of
cognitive hardiness rejxjrted by young adult children of divorce and the set of predictor

128

variables. The results of this research supported the rejection of this hypothesis. That is,
there was statistical evidence to support the notion that the set of predictor variables (i.e.,
gender, age at time of parental divorce, maternal nurturance, paternal nurturance,
maternal permissiveness, maternal authoritativeness, maternal authoritarianism, paternal
permissiveness, paternal authoritativeness, paternal authoritarianism, and interparental
conflict) significantly influenced cognitive hardiness scores as reported on the CHS. This
set of predictor variables accounted for 27% (R^=.266) of the variance in the level of
hardiness.

Two variables within this set of predictor variables significantly influenced
cognitive hardiness scores. Specifically, both paternal nurturance and paternal
authoritativeness influenced cognitive hardiness. In regard to paternal nurturance, a
statistically significant positive relationship was supported by the regression analysis.
Conversely, a statistically significant inverse relationship between paternal
authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness was supported by the regression analysis. In
other words, the greater the level of paternal authoritativeness reponed on the PAQ, the
lower the cognitive hardiness score on the CHS. These findings have been discussed
previously in this chapter.

Limitations of the Study
There were a number of limitations that characterized this research and may
compromise the generalizability of findings. Limitations include the conceptualization of
variables, selection of variables, instrumentation, sample selection, and data analysis, and
are discussed further.

129

Conceptualization of variables

A limitation of this study may be the use of Baumrind's (1971) parental authority
prototypes to explore the influence of parenting style on the development of cognitive
hardiness. Baumrind conceptualizes these three parental authority styles to be distinct
prototypes, as opposed to existing along the same continuum. However, similar to
previous studies that used Baumrind's authority prototypes, a number of intercorrelations
(i.e., -.56 to . 1 8) were identified among the three parenting styles for each parent, several
of which reached significance. For many participants in this study, examination of their
individual scores for each of the three parental authority styles reveals only a slight
difference among their scores for each parent. In other words, participants often failed to
identify a particular parenting style that characterized the authority style that they
observed in either their mother or father, as there were only slight differences in scores
among the three parental authority styles. In addition, none of the three parenting styles
for either parent reached significance in the correlational analysis in regard to their
association with cognitive hardiness. Therefore, Baimuind's conceptualization of
parental authority may not clearly distinguish one parental authority style from the other
two, and this shared variance among parenting styles may have prevented the regression
analysis from accurately assessing the influence of parenting style on the level of
cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce.
Selection of variables

Exclusion of variables that might be more salient in predicting cognitive hardiness
in young adult children of divorce was another limitation of this study. Only 27% of the
variance in cognitive hardiness was accounted for by the regression equation, and

130

paternal and maternal nurturance accounted for 24% of this variance. In other words,
when both paternal and maternal nurturance were excluded from the regression analysis,
only 4% of the variance in cognitive hardiness was explained by the set of variables
included in this study. As a result, 73% of the variance in cognitive hardiness was not
accounted for by the variables included in this study.

Given the salience of paternal nurturance in this study in predicting cognitive
hardiness and the significant amount of time that participants did not live in the same
household with their fathers after their parents'divorce, another limitation of this research
is exclusion of variables that related to visitation and contact with one's father after
parental divorce (e.g., frequency of visitation with the noncustodial father, duration of
visitation post divorce, number of changes in noncustodial father's marital status post
divorce).

Finally, a central assumption of the research design was that positive outcomes
would be identified in young adults who have experienced the divorce of their biological
parents and spent some length of time living in a household headed by a single-parent.
Therefore, bias was inherent in this study since the investigator was only examining the
development of a personality strength, cognitive hardiness, and excluding other positive
and negative dependent variables. Salient variables that may have explained the lack of
significance of any of the maternal variables in the regression analysis were excluded
because of the use of a resilience research perspective. In addition, variables that may
have expanded understanding of the significance of paternal nurturance in contributing to
the development of hardiness in young adult children of divorce were also excluded from
this study.

131

Furthermore, investigating the perceptions of young adult children of divorce in
regard to potentially negative aspects of living in a single-parent household headed by a
divorced mother that Weiss (1979. 1994) identified were not included from this study.
For example, the presence of boundary violations, task overload, or role reversals were
not examined in this study. Therefore, bias toward positive aspects of single-parent
households headed by divorced mothers may have resulted in salient variables being
excluded from this investigation of the development of cognitive hardiness in young adull
children of divorce.
Instruments

The findings of this research may have been limited as a result of the research
instruments used in assessing the independent and dependent variables. Use of a
standardized instrument for the evaluation of any construct is important, however, the
selection of the CHS (Nowack 1989) may have presented some difficulties that were not
initially apparent. The CHS was used in this research to measure the level of cognitive
hardiness in a sample of young adult children of divorce between the ages of 18 and 25
years. However, no prior studies were located that used this instrument with a college-
age population. Participants in all previous studies utilizing the CHS to assess cognitive
hardiness were comprised of working professionals (Greene & Nowack 1995, Nowack
1985, 1989, 1990, 1991, Nowack & Pentkowski 1994). Furthermore, the CHS was
modified to make it more applicable to population of college undergraduate students;
seven statements were changed.

Unfortunately, the Cronbach's (1951) alpha reliability estimate for the revised
CHS was .55, considerably lower than the .83 calculated in Nowack's (1989) original

132

research. As a result, the internal reliability of the revised instrument may have been
significantly reduced, thereby compromising the findings of this research. Despite the
low Cronbach's alpha for the revised CHS used in this study, the mean level of cognitive
hardiness reported by this sample and standard deviation were similar to the results of
Nowack's (1990) initial development of the CHS. The mean level of cognitive hardiness
for his research sample was 97.32 and the standard deviation in CHS scores was 1 1.45.
In comparison, the mean CHS score for the present study was slightly higher (99.4S) than
Nowack's findings, and the standard deviation was almost identical (11.13).

In addition, ail of the instruments used in this research were self-report measures.
Unfortunately, participants tend to complete self-report measures in a socially desirable
manner (Cone & Foster, 1993). As a result, social desirability bias is inherent in research
that obtains data from self-report instruments. Also, all of the measures of parental
behaviors (i.e., parental nurturance, authority, and conflict) were obtained from
offspring's perceptions, as opposed to objective observations. An example of a potential
problem created by that of a subjective measure can be illustrated in the scenario of a
young adult who is in an estranged relationship with one of their parents. This individual
may tend to describe their perceptions of the parent's behavior in more pejorative terms
as a result of the current status of the parent-child relationship. Therefore, another
potential limitation of this study was its reliance on self-report instruments to assess all of
the parental constructs used in the analysis.
Sample selection

Sampling issues may also limit the generalizability and validity of the findings of
the proposed research. Undergraduate students at junior and 4-year colleges were

133

recruited to participate in this study. Inherent in this sample is bias towards young adult
children who have the financial and academic ability to attend college. Excluded from
this sample are young adult children of divorce who may have entered the workforce or
nulitary; taken time off between high school and attending college as a resuU of
employment, family, or personal concerns; become employed in careers not requiring a
college degree; been unable to obtain the financial support needed to attend college; and
been unable to obtain emotional support from their family to pursue a college degree.
Data Analysis

While correlational analysis identified the strength and direction of association
among variables, correlation coefficients to not provide sufficient information to imply
causality (Huck et al., 1974). A high positive correlation does not imply that a causal
relationship exists between the two variables because the relationship may be attributed
to a third variable. Therefore a limitation of this research is its use of correlational
analysis to test 11 of the 12 hypotheses.

A number of the independent variables were correlated with one another, and two
of these correlations (i.e., paternal nurturance and paternal authoritativeness; maternal
nurturance and maternal authoritativeness) reached .70, suggesting that multicollinearity
may have occurred within the set of predictor variables. The minimum level of
acceptable intercorrelation among independent variables in the regression equation varies
from .70 to .85, depending on the researcher (Polit 1996, Tabachnick & Fidell 2001).
SPSS 1 0.0 collinearity diagnostics were performed to investigate the possibility of
multicollinearity in the set of independent variables. The tolerance levels were calculated
to be between 3S6 and .956, suggesting that the assumption that the data set was not

characterized by multicoUinearity was not violated. For tnulticoUinearity to have been
present, the tolerance values would have approached zero (Pallant 2001, Tabachnick &
Fidell 2001). However, the assumption that the independent variables would demonstrate
some level of association (r > .30) with the dependent variable was violated (Pallant
2001). Only one of the 1 1 predictor variables, paternal nurturance, was found to have a
correlation (r = .35; p<.01) with the dependent variable (i.e., cognitive hardiness) that
was above .30.

A test of the assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity between
predicted dependent variable scores (i.e., cognitive hardiness) and errors of prediction
was provided through examination of the scatterplots of the residuals (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2001). The first assumption of regression analysis is that differences between
obtained and predicted scores of the dependent variable, or residuals, are normally
distributed around each predicted dependent variable score. When the assumption of
normality is met, examination of the residuals scatterplot reveals that the residuals are
concentrated in the center of the scatterplot such that for each for each value of the
predicted score, the corresponding regression standardized residual has a value near zero
(Polit 1996, Tabachnick & Fidell 2001). However, in this study, the residuals were not
highly concentrated along a straight horizontal line in the center of the graph near the
value of zero.

The assumption of linearity is that the relationship between the predicted
dependent values and errors of prediction is linear. However examination of the
scatterplot of the residuals in this study suggests that nonlinearity may characterize the
relationship between the predicted dependent values of errors of prediction. The

135

residuals were not distributed in a rectangular form, as the shape observed in the
scatterplot seemed to lack symmetry. Therefore, the assumption of linearity may have
been violated. The last assumption, homoscedasticity, assumes that the standard
deviations of errors of prediction are approximately the same for all predicted scores of
the dependent variable (Polit 1996, Tabachnick & Fidell 2001). In other words, the band
including all of the residuals on the scatterplot is approximately the same width for all
predicted values of the dependent variable. Examination of the scatterplot of the
residuals provides evidence that the band enclosing the residuals is not equal at all
predicted dependent variable values, and therefore heteroscedasticity may have occurred.
In this study, the errors of prediction seemed to slightly decrease as the size of the
prediction increased.

The assumption of homoscedasticity can be violated when some of the variables
are skewed while others are not (Tabachnick & Fidell 2001). In this study, the skewness
of the distribution of scores of paternal authoritativeness was calculated to be -.412. This
may be a possible explanation for the occurrence of heteroscedasticity. In additioti, the
Jarque-Bara test of normality for the distribution of the paternal authoritativeness scores
was high (-33.18), and could imply that the assumption of normality may have been
violated. Finally, the interaction of an independent variable with another variable that
was not included in the regression analysis could also explain the heteroscedasticity in
this scatterplot of the residuals (Tabachnick & Fidell 200 1 ). Heteroscedasticity most
often occurs in the analysis of cross-sectional data (Schroeder, Sjoquist, & Stephan
1986). Therefore, another potential limitation of this study is its cross-sectional research
design.

136

The presence of several outlying residuals was observed on inspection of the
residuals scatterplot. As a result, the Malhalanobis distances were calculated by the
multiple regression analysis. Using the number of independent variables as the degrees
of freedom (n=l 1), the critical chi-square value (3 1.26) was obtained from Tabachanick
and Fidell (2001). Comparison of the Mahalanobis distances calculated by the regression
analysis for each of the cases and the critical chi-square value provided evidence that
none of the cases had a Mahalanobis distance value that exceeded the critical value of
3 1.26. However, however there were a number of cases (i.e., outliers) that approached
the critical value.

Examination of the scatterplot of the residuals confirmed that there were several
outliers (i.e., extreme values) in the distribution. Therefore, a possible explanation for the
unexpected negative association between paternal authoritativeness and the dependent
variable (i.e., cognitive hardiness) identified in the regression analysis could be the
presence of these outliers. Multiple regression is a type of analysis that is highly
sensitive to outliers (Pallant 2001).

However, another possible explanation for the unexpected direction of the
association between paternal authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness could be attributed
to the occurrence of a Type I error in the regression analysis. A Type I error occurs when
the null hypothesis is incorrectly rejected (Pallant 2001, Polit 1996, Tabachnick & Fidell
2001). In other words, the hypothesis that there was no relationship between paternal
authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness reported by young adult children of divorce
could have been erroneously rejected based on the results of the regression analysis. In
contrast, the null hypothesis was retained as a result of the correlational analysis because

137

these findings did not support a significant relationship between paternal
authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness. Therefore, the results of the regression
analysis were inconsistent with the findings firom the correlational analysis in regard to
the null hypothesis that there was no relationship between these two variables (i.e.,
paternal authoritativeness and cognitive hardiness). The inconsistency between the
findings of the correlational and regression analyses seems to support the possibility that
a Type I error occurred in the regression analysis.

The regression equation included 1 1 independent variables, and it is possible that
the number of independent variables may have increased the risk of a Type 1 error since
inclusion of too many potential predictor variables can reduce the utility of the regression
equation (Polit 1996). One of the goals of regression analysis is to identify the smallest
number of uncotrelated independent variables needed to predict a dependent variable
(Tabachnick & Fidell 2001). Therefore, inclusion of a large set of independent variables
in this study, almost all of which were not significantly correlated with the dependent
variable but intercorrelated with each other, may have increased the risk of a Type I error.

Another assumption of regression analysis is that errors of prediction are
independent of one another (Tabachnick & Fidell 2001). To test whether or not this
assumption had been violated by the regression analysis, the Durbin- Watson statistic was
calculated. The value of the Durbin- Watson statistic was 2.397. and fell within the
indecision zone, thereby making it impossible to conclude whether autocorrelation was
present

Finally, the sample size for this study was based on 10 subjects per independent
variable, and therefore the minimum sample size needed was 110 since 1 1 independent

138

variables were entered into the regression equation. The guidelines for calculating
sample size requirements for multiple regression analysis varies among researchers, and a
limitation of this study may have been its small sample size for multiple regression
analysis.

Implications

Theory

The results of this study contribute to the two theories guiding this research;
Maddi and Kobasa's (1984) hardiness theory, and Weiss's (1979) theory of the
functioning of single-parent households created by divorce. First of all, the findings of
this research confirm the influence of parental nurturance in the development of hardiness
in offspring, regardless of the parent's gender. Maddi and Kobasa (1984) emphasized the
salience of the quality of parent-child interaction and family atmosphere in the
development of hardiness, as compared to other variables. Together paternal and
maternal nurturance accounted for 23% of the variance in cognitive hardiness reported by
young adult children of divorce. The remaining variables in the multiple regression
analysis (i.e., gender, age at time of parental divorce, maternal and paternal
authoritativeness, maternal and paternal authoritarianism, maternal and paternal
permissiveness, and interparental conflict post divorce) accounted for another 4% of the
variance in the level of cognitive hardiness in young adult children of divorce. Therefore,
it appears that Maddi and Kobasa (1984) may have failed to identify other saUent
variables that contribute to the development of this personality strength in offspring.

In this study, paternal nurturance significantly contributed to the development of
cognitive hardiness in young adult children of divorce, while the contribution of maternal

139

nurturance was much weaker. This finding is of particular significance given that 78% of
the sample resided with their mothers after parental divorce. In addition, most of the
participants lived more than half of the childhood and adolescence with their mothers
since the average age at the time of parental divorce was 8 years.

The results of this research fail to provide substantial support for Weiss' (1979)
theory of the ftinctioning of single-parent households. He purported that, as a result of
the decrease in social distance when a second parent in no living in the household, the
level of emotional closeness in parent-child relationships increases. The association
between maternal nurturance and cognitive hardiness identified this study was weak
(Huck et al. 1974). While offspring may have experienced increased emotional closeness
in their relationship with their custodial mothers, only paternal nurturance significantly
contributed to the development of cognitive hardiness in the regression analysis.
Furthermore, the strength of the relationship between paternal nurturance and cognitive
hardiness was almost twice the magnitude of the relationship identified between maternal
nurturance and cognitive hardiness in the correlational analysis.

The results of this study failed to provide support for the contribution of an
authoritative parenting style to the development of cognitive hardiness in young adult
children of divorce. Based on Maddi and Kobas's theory of the development of
hardiness in offspring, it was expected that an authoritative parenting style would
positively and significantly contribute to the development of cognitive hardiness.
Furthermore, Weiss' (1979) purports that single-parent households created by divorce arc
characterized by a maternal authoritative parenting style. While within the range of mean
scores from previous studies, the mean level of maternal authoritativeness in this study

140

was near the lower end of the range of scores. The level of authoritativeness reported for
both mothers and fathers failed to reach significance in either the correlational or
regression analyses.
Practice

While the participants in this study can be considered a nonclinical sample, the
results of this investigation can be useful for family practitioners working with
individuals and families whose lives have been affected by the experience of divorce.
Use of a resilience perspective in working with single-parent families created by divorce,
households experiencing parental divorce, and offspring of divorced parents encourages
therapists to expand their understanding of what constitutes normal and viable family
households. As a result, clinicians can focus on identifying and promoting healthy
individual and family functioning.

When both the maternal and paternal measures of nurturance were eliminated
from the initial regression analysis, the predictor set of independent variables (i.e.,
gender, age at time of divorce, maternal permissiveness, maternal authoritativeness,
maternal authoritarianism, paternal permissiveness, paternal authoritativeness, paternal
authoritarianism, and interparental conflict) failed to reach significance in predicting the
level of cognitive hardiness in the sample. Furthermore, only 4% of the variance in
cognitive hardiness was explained by the set of variables when maternal and paternal
nurturance were excluded. In contrast, 27% of the variance in the cognitive hardiness
was accounted for by the initial set of predictor variables when both measures of parenul
nurturance were included (see Table 5). In other words, 23% of the variance in cognitive
hardiness can be accounted for by parental nurturance.

141

These findings are not surprising given the number of previous studies have
identified the contribution of parental nurturance to positive development of self-esteem
in adolescents and young adults (Buri 1989, Buri et al. 1987, 1988, 1992). However,
these previous investigations excluded participants whose parents were divorced or
separated, had died, or were never married. Therefore, the findings of this study
contribute substantially to extant literature, as the sample was comprised solely of young
adult children of divorce. Of even more significance was the finding that paternal
nurturance was more salient in predicting cognitive hardiness than maternal hardiness,
despite the majority of the sample (78%) reporting living with a custodial mother for
more than half of their childhood an adolescence.

An interesting relationship that emerged from this study was the significant
influence that perceived parental nurturance has on a young adult's perception of parental
authority. Regardless of the parent's gender, the results of this research provide evidence
of a positive and significant association between parental nurturance and
authoritativeness in the corresponding parent. In addition, the findings from this study
support a significant inverse association between parental nurturance and
authoritarianism. The results of this study are similar to those that Buri (1989) found that
suggest that the effects of parental authority style on the development of personality
strengths in young adults may be the result of their association with parental nurturance.
Buri (1989) found evidence that the effects of parental authoritarianism and
authoritativeness on self-esteem in young adults appears to be attributable to the direct
effect of parental nurturance on parenting style. The findings of the current research are
of particular significance given that previous research on parental nurturance has relied

142

on samples of young adults from intact families, while excluding individuals whose
parents were separated or divorced, deceased, or never married to one another.

The salience of parental nurturance in contributing to a young adult's perceptions
of parental authority suggests that clinicians working with parents and offspring in a
context of divorce. Therefore, emphasis of the influence of perceived nurturance of both
custodial and noncustodial parents on offspring should be incorporated into therapy with
families whose lives have been altered as a result of marital dissolution. Family
therapists may focus their clinical work on encouraging divorced parents to use an
authoritative parenting style in both the custodial and noncustodial households to order to
encourage healthy development and positive adjustment in their offspring. Empirical
evidence supports the positive association between an authoritative parenting style and
positive outcomes for offspring.

However, both the direct and indirect effects of parental nurturance in
contributing to outcomes for children of divorce may be neglected by clinicians as a
result of a lack of knowledge of the salience or conceptualization of this construct in a
context of divorce. This study has significant implications for family therapists as a
result of the effects of parental nurturance demonstrated by each parent, especially for
divorced fathers, regardless of whether or not they have custody of their children.

In addition, this research supports the salience of encouraging non-custodial
fathers to maintain close emotional relationships with their offspring that are
characterized by a high level of nurturance. Family therapists should make every effort
to (a) include biological fathers of children of divorce in their clinical work with
offspring, (b) solicit support of custodial mothers in encouraging the father-child

143

relationship after divorce, and (c) educate both custodial and noncustodial parents in
regard to the salience and operationalization of parental nurturance in the development of
personality strengths in young adult children of divorce.
Future Research

Future investigations of the experience of parental divorce from a resilience
perspective can further identify and expand salient variables that contribute to positive
outcomes and healthy adaptation for young adult children of divorce. Given the
continued prevalence of parental divorce, additional within-group studies of young adult
children are needed to identify parent-child variables that encourage the development of
personality strengths and healthy adjustment in a context of adversity.

Because of the number of intercorrelations between measures of parental
nurturance and parental authority in this study, as well as in previous investigations, ^
researchers could reduce the threats to the validity of findings by eliminating one of these
variables firom future research designs. Further investigations of parental nurturance,
particularly in a context of parental divorce and Uving in a single-parent household, are
needed. Additional research could investigate specific parenting behaviors that are
perceived as nurturing by offspring, especially in a context of divorce and living in a
single-parent household. Negative aspects of living in a single-parent household headed
by a divorced mother that influence offspring's perception of maternal nurturance and the
development of personality strengths need to be investigated further. Boundary
violations, role reversal, and task overload need to be examined from the perspective of
offspring in order to identify how these variables may adversely affect the development
of resilience in young adult children of divorce.

144

Qualitative research may be especially usefUl in understanding parental
nurturance in a context of both custodial and noncustodial households created by divorce.
Furthermore, qualitative research may be useful in identifying how the types of
behaviors perceived to be nurturing may change as a result of developmental stages. The
types of parental behaviors assessed to be nurturing by the PNS may need to be expanded
and modified in order to accurately describe the nature of the parent-child relationship in
a context of living in single-parent households created by divorce, and maintaining a
relationship with a noncustodial parent.

In addition, as a result of the very low Cronbach alpha reliability estimate (a =
.55), fiiture studies that examine cognitive hardiness in a sample of young adults need to
modify and norm the CHS to be more reliable and valid in a population different than the
one used for the development of the instrument. Other personality constructs may be
more appropriate measures of resilience among offspring of divorce than cognitive
hardiness, particularly as assessed by the CHS.

Between-group studies of hardiness in samples of young adults from a variety of
family structures would be useful to fiirther explore the salience of parent-child
interactions in contributing to the development of hardiness in offspring. Investigating
the contribution of variables other than those explored in this study would be useful in
expanding imderstanding of the dynamics of parent-child interactions that contribute to
the development of personality strengths in yoimg adults, particularly in a context of
living in a single-parent family.

The results of this study suggest that mother-child and father-child interactions
affect offspring of divorce differently. Given the continued prevalence of children and

adolescents growing up in single-parent households created by divorce, expanding
understanding of the distinct roles of mothers and fathers in the development of
personality strengths is of particular importance, especially for clinicians working with
families of divorce.

Lastly, the sample for this investigation was not representative of young adult
children of divorce in the United States. This investigation was limited to young adults
attending either a 2-year community college or 4-year university. Future studies could
recruit a more heterogeneous sample to include young adult children of divorce who are
not currently attending either a 2-year conmiunity college or 4-year university.

Summary

This chapter has provided discussion of results and recommendations derived
from an investigation of the influence of gender, age at time of parental divorce, parental
nurturance, parental authority style, and post divorce interparental conflict style on the
development of cognitive hardiness in young adult children of divorce. The variables
that were significant were discussed, and associations were examined for strengthening
and expanding future studies. Therapeutic interventions with offspring and families
affected by parental divorce were suggested based on the findings of this study.

146

APPENDIX A
LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS

Dear Potential Research Participant:

In an effort to better understand how young adults think about their ability to
manage their lives and cope with life stressors, a research study is being conducted on the
influence of specific paternal and maternal behaviors on personality development. As a
doctoral candidate in the Counselor Education Department at the University of Florida,
and a staff counselor in the Counseling Center at the University of North Florida, I am
inviting you to participate in this study.

Participation will require about 30 minutes. You will be asked to complete
several questionnaires that ask you about your observations of specific behaviors that you
noticed in your mother and father. It does not matter if your parents are divorced, as I am
interested in the behaviors that you observed when you spent time with each of your
biological parents. You will also be asked some questions about your attitude towards
your responsibilities, activities, and coping abilities. Lastly, you will be asked to
complete a demographic questionnaire that gives you an opportxmity to share any
additional information that you think would be helpful to me. Your identity and
responses will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may withdraw at
any time. There are no knowm risks; however, if you feel that you need to speak with
someone regarding issues stimulated by this survey, you may call me for a referral. No
immediate benefits are anticipated although you may request the results of the study and
your responses. Please be assured that no other that, beyond this project, will be made of
the information that you provide.

If you have any questions about this research, you may contact me at my office
(904) 273-4543 or my faculty supervisor. Dr. Ellen Amatea, at (352) 392-073 1 . Either of
us may be contacted in writing at 1212 Norman Hall, University of Florida, 3261 1.
Questions or concerns about research participants= rights may be directed to the UFIRB
office. University of Florida, Box U250, GainesviUe, FL 3261 1; telephone (352) 392-
0433.

If you would like to participate, please sign the statement below and include it
with your completed questionnaires in the envelope that was distributed.

Sincerely,

Virginia M. Boney, Ph.D. Candidate
LMHC, LHFT, NCC; Principal Investigator

Ellen Amatea, Ph.D.
Supervisor

I have read the procedures described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the
procedure, and I have received a copy of this description.

Signature of Participant

Date

148

APPENDIX B
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

Thank you for participating in this research study regarding the influence of
maternal and paternal behaviors on young adults' attitudes towards college and
responsibilities. Your responses to the survey questions that follow will help me better
understand how specific parenting behaviors of mothers and fathers influence how young
adults think about their ability to manage their lives and cope with life stressors. Your
opinion is important; there are no right or wrong "answers" to these questions.
Remember, your responses are confidential and anonymous. Please provide the
demographic information requested below:

Age: Gender (circle one): Male Female

Current GPA:

(If you are a first semester fi-eshman, please that your high school GPA)

I am currently attending (circle one): Junior/2-year college 4-year college

Race ethnicity (circle one):

Caucasian Black Hispanic

Native American Asian Other

Highest Level of Education completed by each biological parent (circle one for each

parent):

Mother

Father

Middle High School

High School

Junior College (AA-AS)

4-year college (BA-BS)

Master's Degree or PhJ).

Master's Degree or PhD.

Please circle the status that best describes your biological parents' current legal marital
status:

IVIy biological parents are:

Married to each other Divorced/separated from each other

One of my parents is deceased Were never married to each other

If you biological parents are divorced, please answer the following questions. If
your parents remain married, please skip to the last question (*) at the bottom of this
page.

How old were you when your parents divorced?

Did your parents divorce at least 12 months before you entered college? Yes No
Did your mother remarry (please circle your answer)? Yes No

If you mother remarried, how old were you when she remarried?

Did your father remarry (please circle your answer)? Yes No

If you father remarried, how old were you when she remarried?

Please mark the answer (X) that best describes which parent you lived with
following your parents' divorce:

I lived most of the time with my mother, or my mother and herpaitner/spouse.

I lived most of the time with my father, or my father and his partner/spouse.

I lived about the same amount of time witii each of my parents following their

divorce.

* Please feel free to share any other information that might be helpful to me about
parenting behaviors that you observed in your mother and father. I am also
interested in how you think these parenting behaviors may have affected your
personality development and how you cope with life stressors or challenges. You
can that the back of this page if yon need additional space.

ISO

REFERENCES

Acock, A. C, & Demo, D. H. (1994). Family diversity and well-being.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ahrons, C. (1979). Binuclear families: Two households, one family. Alternative
Lifestyles. 2.499-S15.

Ahrons, C. (1994). The good divorce: Keeping your family together when your
marriage comes apart. NY: HarperPerennial.

Amato, P. R. (1988). Long-term implications of parental divorce for adult self-
concept. Journal of Family Issues. 21. 201-213.

Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children.
Journal of Marriage and the Family. 62. 1269-1287.

Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (1991). The consequences of parental divorce and
marital unhappiness for adult well-being. Social Forces. 69. 895-914.

Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991a). Parental divorce and adult well-being: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family. (53). 43-58.

Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991b). Parental divorce and the well-being of
children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 110 (1). 26-46.

Anatonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Andrassy, J. (1992). The relationship among selected personality variables,
exercise frequency and coping style in response to stress. Unpublished master's thesis,
Miami University, Miami, Ohio.

Aquilano, W. S. (1994). Impact of childhood family disruption of young adults'
relationships with parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 56. 295-3 1 3 .

Arditti, J. A. (1999). Rethinking relationships between divorced mothers and
their children: Capitalizing on family strengths. Family Relations. 48. 109-1 19.

Arditti, J. A., & Madden-Derdich, D. (1995). No regrets: Custodial mothers'
accounts of the difficulties and benefits of divorce. Contemporary Family Therapy. 17.
229-248.

tsi

Aro, H. M., & Palosaari, U. K.. (1992). Parental divorce,- adolescence, and
transition to young adulthood: A follow-up study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
62. 421-429.

Arrendell, T. (2000). Conceiving and investigating motherhood: The decade's
scholarship. Journal of Marriage and the Family. (62>. 1 192-1207.

Barber, B. L., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). Long-term influence of divorce and single
parenting on adolescent family- and work-related values, behaviors, and aspirations.
Psychological Bulletin. 111. 108-126.

Barkey, T. J., & Procidano, M. E. (1989). College-age children of divorce: Are
effects evident in early adulthood? Journal of College Student Psychotherapy. 4. 77-87.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental
Psychology Monographs. 4(1). Part 2.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence
and substance that. Journal of Early Adolescence. 1 1 (1). 56-95.

Bianchi, S. M. (1995). The changing demographic and socioeconomic
characteristics of single parent families. Marriage & Family Review. 20. 71-97.

Biblarz, T. J., & Raftery, A. E. (1999). Family structure, educational attainment,
and socioeconomic success: Rethinking the "pathology of matriarchy." American Journal
ofSociology. 105. 321-365.

Blechman, E. A. (1982). Are children with one parent at psychological risk? A
methodological review. Journal of Marriage and the Family. (44). 179-191.

Bolgar, R., Zweig-Frank, H., & Paris, J. (1995). Childhood antecedents of
interpersonal problems in young adult children of divorce. Journal of the Academy of
Child and Adolescent P.sychiatrv. 34 (21. 143-150.

Booth, A., & Amato, P. R. (2001). Parental predivorce relations and offspring
postdivorce well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family. (63). 197-212.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1961). Some familial antecedents of responsibility and
leadership in adolescents. In L. Petrullo and B. M. Bass (Eds.), Leadership and
interpersonal behavior, (pp. 239-271). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winstor.

Bumpass, L. L. (1990). What's happening to the family? Interactions between
demographic and institutional change. Demography. 27. 483-498.

Bun, J. R. (1988). Effects of parental authoritarianism and authoritetiveness on
self-esteem. Personality and Social Bulletin. 14 (2\ 271 -?«?

Bun, J. R. (1989). Self-esteem and appraisals of parental behavior. Journal of
Adolescent Resarch. 4 f n. 33-49.

Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality
Assessment. 57 (H. 1 10-1 19.

Buri, J. R., Kirchner, P. A., & Walsh, J. M. (1987). Familial conelates of self-
esteem in young American adults. Journal of Social Psychology. 127 (6\. 583-588.

Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis. T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988). Effects
of parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on self-esteem. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin. 14. 271-282.

Buri, J. R., Murphey, P., Richtmeier, L. M., & Komar, K. K. (1992). Stability of
parental nurturance as a salient predictor of self-esteem. Psychological Reports. 71. 535-

Carter, R., & McGoldrick, M. (Eds.) (1998). The expanded family life cycle:
Individual, family, and social perspectives (3"* ed.). Needham Heights, MA: AUyn &
Bacon.

Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Cherlin, A. J., & fGeman, K. E. (1995). The long-tenn
effects of parental divorce on the mental health of young adults: A developmental
perspective. Child Development. 66. 1614-1634.

Cherlin, A. J. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Cheriin, A. J., Furstenberg, F. P., Jr., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Kieman, K. E.,
Robins, P. K., Monison, D. R., & Teitler, J. O. (1991). Longitudinal studies of the
effects of divorce on children in Great Britain and the United States. Science. 252. 1386-
1389.

Cone, J. D., & Foster, S. L. (1993). Dissertations and Theses from Start to Finish:
Psychology and Related Fields. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psvchometrika. 16. 297-334.

Demo, D. H. (1992). Parent-child relations: Assessing recent changes. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. (54). 104-1 17.

153

Demo, D. H. (2000). The relentless search for the effects of divorce: Forging new
trails or tumbling down the beaten path? Journal of Marriage and the Family. 62. 42-45.

Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1988). The impact of divorce on children. Journal
of Marriage and the Family. (SO). 619-648.

Depner, C. E., & Bray, J. H. (Eds.). (1993). Nonresidential parenting: New vistas
in family living. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L.A. (1993). Resilience as a process.
Development and Psychopathology. 5. 5 1 7-528.

Emery, R. E. (1988). Marriage, divorce, and children's adjustment. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Emery, R. E., & Forehand, R. (1994). Parental divorce and children's well being:
A focus on resilience. In R. J. Haggerty, L. R. Sherrod, N. Gaimezy, and M. Rutter
(Eds.), Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms,
and interventions, (pp. 64-99). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ensign, J., Scherman, A., & Clark, J. J. (1998). The relationship of family
structure and conflict to levels of intimacy and parental attachment in college students.
Adolescence. 33. 575-582.

Evans, J. J., & Bloom, B. L. (1996). Effects of parental divorce among college
undergraduates. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage. 26. 69-91.

Ferrari, J. R., & Olivette, M. J. (1993). Perceptions of parenul control and the
development of indecision among late adolescent females. Adolescence. 28. 963-970.

Fish, M., Belsky, J., & Youngblade, L. (1991). Developmental antecedents and
measurement of intergenerational boimdary violation in a nonclinic sample. Journal of
Family Psychology. 4. 278-297.

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Singer, A. (1995). Perfectionism and parental
authority styles. Individual Psychology. 51 (1). 51-60.

Ford-Gilboe, M., & Campbell, J. (1996). The mother-headed single-parent
family: A feminist critique of the nursing literature. Nursing Outlook. 44. 173-183.

Funk,S. C. (1992). Hardiness: A review of theory and research. Health
Psychology. 1 1 (51. 335-345.

Funk, S. C, & Houston, B. K. (1987). A critical analysis of the Hardiness Scale's
validity and utility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53. 572-578.

1S4

Fumham, A., & Cheng, H. (2000). Perceived parental behavior, self-esteem and
happiness. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology. 35. 463-470.

Furstenberg, F. F., & Teitler, J. O. (1994). Reconsidering the effects of marital
dissolution: What happens to children of divorce in early adulthood? Journal of Family
Issues. \5 (2). 173-190.

Garber, R. J. (1991). Long-term effects of divorce on the self-esteem of young
adults. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage. 17 (1/2). 131-137.

Garber, J., & Flynn, C. (1998). Origins of the depressive cognitive style. In D.
K. Routh & R. J. DeRubeis (Eds.), The Science of Clinical Psychology:
Accomplishments and Future Directions, (pp. 53-93). Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association.

Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress-resistant children: The search for protective factors.
In J. E. Stevenson (Ed.), Recent research in developmental psychopathology. (pp. 231-
233). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Garmezy, N. (1991). Resilience in children's adaptation to negative life events
and stressed environments. Pediatric Annals. 20 (9). 459-466.

Garmezy, N., & Rutter, M. (1985). Acute reactions to stress. In M. Rutter & L.
Hersov (Eds.), Child and adolescent psychiatry: Modem approaches. London: Blackwell
Scientific Publications.

Glass, G. v., & Hopkins, K. D. (1984). Statistical methods in education and
psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Golby, B. J., & Bretherton, I. (1999). Resilience in postdivorce mother-child
relationships. In H. I. McCubbin, E. A. Thompson, A. I. Thompson, & J. A. Futrell
(Eds.), The Dynamics of Resilient Families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gonzalez, A., Greenwood, G., & WenHsu, J. (2001). Undergraduate students'
goal orientations and their relationship to perceived parenting styles. College Student
Journal. 35 (2). 182-192.

Grant, L. S., Smith, T. A., Sinclair, J. J. & Salts, C. J. (1993). The impact of
parental divorce on college adjustment. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 19 (1/2). 183-
193.

Greene, R. L. & Nowack, K. N. (1995). Hassles, hardiness and absenteeism:
Results ofa 3-year longitudinal study. Work & Stress. 9 (4). 448-462.

155

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children's
adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin. 108 (2). 267-
290.

Guttman, J. (1993). Divorce in psychological perspective: Theory and research.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hanline, M.. F., & Daley, S. E. (1992). Family coping strategies and strengths in
Hispanic, African-American, and Caucasian families of young children. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education. 12. 351-366.

Hanson, S. M. (1986). Healthy single-parent families. Family Relations. 35. 125-

132.

Herz, L., & Gullone, E. (1999). The relationship between self-esteem and
parenting style: A cross-cultural comparison of Australian and Vietnamese Australian
adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 30 (6). 742-761.

Hess, R. D., & Camera, K. A. (1979). Post divorce family relationships as
mediating factors in the consequences of divorce for children. Journal of Social Issues.
35 (4). 79-96.

Hetherington, E. M. (1989). Coping with family transitions: Winners, losers, and
survivors. Child Development. 60. 1-14.

Hetherington, E. M. (1991a). The role of individual differences and family
relationships in children's coping with divorce and remarriage. In P. A. Cowen & E. M.
Hetherington (Eds.), Family transitions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hetherington, E. M. (1991b). Families, lies and videotapes. Journal of Research
on Adolescence. I. 323-348.

Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1992). Coping with marital
transitions. Monographs of the Society for research in Child Development. 57.(2-3.
Serial No. 227).

Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1982). Effects of divorce on parents
and children. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child
development (pp. 233-288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hetherington, E. M., Law, T. C, & O'Connor, T. G. (1993). Divorce:
Challenges, changes, and new chances. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal Family Processes (2*^
Edl (pp. 208-234). New York: Guilford Press.

156

Hokoda, A., & Fincham, F. D. (1995). Origins of children's helpless and mastery
achievement patterns in the family. Jomnal of Educational Psychology. 87. 375-385.

Hopkins, H. R., & KJein, H. A. (1993). Multidimensional self-perception:
Linkages to parental nurturance. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1 54 (4). 465-473.

Huck, S. W., Cormier, W. H., & Bounds, W. G. (1974). Reading statistics and
research. NY: Harper & Row.

Hull, J. G., Van Truen, R. R., & Vimelli, S. (1987). Hardiness and health: A
critique and alternative approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53. 5 1 8-
513.

Jackson, C, Bee-Gates, D. J., & Henriksen, L. (1994). Authoritative parenting,
child competencies, and initiation of cigarette smoking. Health Education Quarterly. 21
(.1). 103-116.

Jetmings, B. M., & Staggers, N. (1994). A critical analysis of hardiness. Nursing
Research. 43 (5). 274-26 1 .

Johnson, P. & McNeil, K. (1998). Predictors of developmental task attainment
for young adult children from divorced families. Contemporary Family Therapy. 20 (2).
237-429.

Kissman, K. (1991). Feminist-based social work with single-parent families.
Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services. 72. 23-28.

Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry
into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37. l-l 1.

Kobasa, S. C. (1982). Commitment and coping in stress resistance among
lawyers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 42. 707-717.

Kobasa, S. C, Maddi, S. R., & Courington, S. (1981). Personality and
constitution as mediators in the stress-illness relationship. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior. 22. 368-378.

Kobasa, S. C, Maddi, S. R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: A
prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 42. 168-177.

Kobasa, S. C, Maddi, S. R., & Zola, M. A. (1983). Type A and hardiness.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 6. 41-51.

Kobasa, S. C, & Puccetti, M. C. (1983). Personality and social resources in
stress resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchotogy. 45. 839-850.

157

Kissman, K. (1991). Feminist-based social work with single-parent families.
Families in society: The journal of contemporary human services. 72. 23-28.

Kulka, R. A., & Weingarten, H. (1979). The long-term effects of parental divorce
in children on adult adjustment. Journal of Social Issues. 35 (4). 50-78.

Kurdek. L. A., & Sinclair, R. J. (1988). Adjustment of young adolescents in two-
parent nuclear, stepfather, and mother-custody families. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology. 56. 91-96.

Lambert, C. E. «fe Lambert, V. A. (1999). Psychological hardiness: State of the
science. Holistic Nursing Practice. 13 (3). 11-19.

Lecourt, H. (1980). Locus of control and coping with life events. In E. Staub
(Ed.), Personality: Basic Issues and Current Research, (pp. 200-235). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

Luthar, S., Ciccertti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A
critical evaluation and guidelines for fiimre work. Child Development. 71 (3). 543-562.

Maccoby, E. E., Buchanan, C. M., Mnookin, R. H., & Dombusch, S. M., (1993).
Postdivorce roles of mother and fathers in the lives of their children. Journal of Family
Psychology. 7(1), 24-38.

Mackay, S. K. (1996). Nurturance: A neglected dimension in family therapy with
adolescents. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 22 (4). 489-508.

Maddi, S. R., & Kobasa, S. C. (1984). The Hardy Executive: Health under Stress.
Homewood, III: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1991). Resilience and development:
Contributions form the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and
Psvchopathology. 2. 425-444.

Mechanic, D., & Hansell, S. (1989). Divorce, family conflict, and adolescents'
well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 30. 105-1 16.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press.

Morris, M. H. & West, C. (2000). An evaluation of the post divorce parental
conflict scale. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 33 (3/4). 77-91.

Morrison, N. C. (1995). Successful single-parent families. Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage. 22 (3/4). 205-219.

1S8

Neighbors, B. D., Forehand, R., & Bau, J. (1997). Interparental conflict and
relations with parents as predictors of young adult functioning. Development and
Psvchopathology. 9. 169-187.

Nelson, W. L, Hughes, H. M., Handal, P., Karz, B., & Saeright, H. R. (1993).
The relationship of family structure and family conflict to adjustment in young adult
college students. Adolescence. 28. 29-40.

Nichols, M. P., & Schwartz, R. C. (1998). Family therapy: Concepts and
methods (4"* ed ). Boston: AUyn & Bacon.

Nowack, K. M. (1985). Type A, hardiness, and psychosocial distress. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine. 9 (6). 537-548.

Nowack, K. M. (1989). Coping style, cognitive hardiness, and health status.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 12 (2). 145-158.

Nowack, K. M. (1990). Initial development and validation of a stress and health
risk factor instrument. Journal of Health Promotion. 4. 173-180.

Nowack, K. M. (1991). Psychosocial predictors of health status. Work & Stress.
5121117-131.

Nowack, K. M., & Pentkowski, A. M. (1994). Lifestyle habits, substance that and
predictorsof job burnout in professional working women. Work & Stress. 8(1). 19-35.

Nunnally, J. C, & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3"* ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis
using SPSS for Windows (Version 10). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Pawlak, J. L., & Klein, H. A. (1997). Parental conflict and self-esteem. Journal
of Genetic Psychology. 158 (3). 303-3 13.

Perrah, M. A. (1990). Cognitive hardiness and coping style as predictors of
adjustment to acne vulgaris. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of
Professional Psychology, Los Angeles, California.

Phares, E. J. (1976). Locus of control in personality. Morristown, NJ: General
Learning E>ress.

Polit, D. F. (1996). Data analysis & statistics for nursing research. Stamford, CT:
Appleton & Lange.

159

Rhodewalt, F., & Augustdottir, S. (1984). On the relationship of hardiness to the
Type A behavior pattern: Perception of life events vs. coping with life events. Journal of
Research in Personality. 18. 212-123.

Richards, L. N., & Schmeige, C, J. (1993). Problems and strengths of single-
parent famlies: Implications for practice and policy. Family Relations. 42. 277-285.

Robitscheck, C, & Kashubeck, S. (1999). A stiiictural model of parental
alcoholism, family fimctiotiing, and psychological health: The mediating effects of
hardiness and personal growth orientation. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 46 (2).
159-172.

Rosenburg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 57 (3). 3 1 6-33 1 .

Runer, M., Cox, A.. Tupling, C, Berger, M., & Yule, W. (1975). Attainment and
adjustment in two geograplucal areas: The prevalence of psychiatric disorder. British
Journal of Psychiatry. 126. 493-509.

Rutter, M., Yule, B., Quinton, D., Rowlands, O., Yule, W., & Berger, M. (1975).
Attainment and adjustment in two geographical areas, m. Some factors accounting for
area differences. British Journal of Psychiatry. 126. 520-533.

Sandler, I. N., Tein, J. Y., & West, S. G. (1994). Coping, stress, and the
psychological symptoms of children of divorce: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study.
Child Development. 65. 1744-1763.

Santrock, J. W., & Tracy, R. L. (1978). Effects of children's family structure
status on the development of stereotypes by teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology.
70. 754-757.

Schaefer, E., & Bell, R. (1958). Development of a parental attitude research
instrument. Child Development 29. 339-361.

Schmidtgall, K., King, A., Zarski, J. J., & Cooper, J. E. (2000). The effects of
parental conflict on later child development. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 33 (1/2).
149-157.

Schroeder, L. D., Sjoquist, D. L., & Stephan, P. E. (1986). Understanding
regression analysis: An introductory guide (2"** ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage.

160

Schwartz, G. E., Schwartz, J. I., Nowack, K. M., & Eichling, P. S. (1992).
Changes in perceived stress and social support overtime are related to changes in immune
function. University of Arizona and Canyon Ranch. Unpubhshed manuscript.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned optimism. New York: Random Hothat.

Seligman, M. E. P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An
introduction. American Psychologist. 55. 5-14.

Sharpley, C. F., Dua, J. K., Reynolds, R., & Acosta, A. (1995). The direct and
relative efficacy of cognitive hardiness. Type A behavior pattern, coping behavior and
social support as predictors of stress and ill-health. Scandinavian Journal of Behavior
Therapy. 24. 15-29.

Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences (3"* ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Shepperd, J. A. & Kashini, J. H. (1991). The Relationship of hardiness, gender,
and stress to health outcomes in adolescents. Journal of Personality. 59 (4). 747-768.

Shook, N. J., & Jurick, J. (1992). Correlates of self-esteem among college
offspring from divorced families. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 18 (3-4). 157-176.

Simons, R. L. & Associates (1996). Understanding differences between divorced
and intact families: Stress, interaction, and child dependent. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sonnenblick, R,, & Schwartz, J. C. (1992). The development of the post divorce
parental conflict scale. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.

Southworth, S., & Schwartz, J. C. (1987). Post divorce contact, relationship with
father, and heterosexual trust in female college students. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatrv. 57. 371-382.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family
relationship. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. G. R.Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The
developing adolescent, (pp. 255-276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S. , Lambom, S. D., & Dombusch, S. M. (1991).
Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches.
Journal of Research on Adolescence. I (1). 19-36.

Stevenson, M. R., & Black, K. N. (1996). How divorce affects offspring: A
research approach. Boulder, CO: Westvicw.

161

Stewart, A. J., Copeland, A. P., Chester, N. L., Malley, J. E., & Barenbaum, N. B.
(1997). Separating together: How divorce transforms families. New York: Guilford.

Stewart, A. J., Sokol, M., Healy, J. M., Jr., & Chester, N. L. (1986). Longitudinal
studies of psychological consequences of life changes in children and adults. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. SO. 143-151.

Straus, M., & Brown, B. (1978). Family measurement techniques: Abstracts of
published instruments. 1934-1974 (rev. ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.

Tabachnick. B. C, & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4** ed.).
Boston: AUyn and Bacon.

Tschann, J. M., Johnston, J. R., Kline, M., & Wallerstein, J. S. (1990). Conilict,
loss, parent-child relationships: Predicting children's adjustment during divorce. Journal
of Divorce. 13. 1-22.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1998). Statistical Abstract of the United States.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1989). Second chances: Men, women, and
children a decade after divorce. New York: Ticknor & Fields.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Corbin, S. B. (1989). Daughters of divorce: Report from a
ten-year follow-up. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 59 (4). 593-603.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the breakup: How children
and parents cone with divorce. New York: Basic.

Walsh, F. (1998). Strengthening family resilience. Chicago: University of
Chicago.

Watson, P. J., Hickman, S. E., Morris, R. J., Milliron, J. T., & Whiting, L. (1995).
Narcissism, self-esteem, and parental nurturance. The Journal of Psychology. 129 (1).
61-73.

Webster's n : New College Dictionary (1995). Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.

Weiner, J., Harlow, L., Adams, J., & Grebstein, L. (1995). Psychological
adjustment of college students from families of divorce. Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage. 23 (3/4). 75-95.

Weiss, R. S. (1979). Growing up a little fasten The experience of growing up in a
single-parent household. Journal of Social Issues. 35. 97-1 1 1 .

Ifi2

Weiss, R.S.( 1994). A different kind of parenting. In G. Handel & G. C.
Whitchurch (Eds.), The psychosocial interior of the family (4"' ed.)(pp. 517-552). New
York: Mdine de Gruyter.

Werner, E. E. (1993). Risk, resilience, and recovery: Perspectiyes from the Kauai
longitudinal study. Development and Psvchopathology. S. 503-5 1 5.

Werner, E. E., & Smith. R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of
resilient children. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children
from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from childhood to midlife: Risk,
resilience, and recovery. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Williams, P. G., Weib, D. J., & Smith, T. W. (1992). Coping processes as
mediators of the relationship between hardiness and health. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine. 15 (3). 237-255.

Williams, R., Lingren, H., Rowe, G., Van Zandt, S., & Stinnett, N. (Eds.) (1985).
Family strengths (Vol. 6): Enhancement of interaction. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.

Wintre, M. G., & Sugar, L. A. (2000). Relationship with parents, personality, and
the univerisity transition. Journal of College Student Development. 41 (2). 202-214.

Wolin, S., & Wolin, S. (1993). The resilient self: How survivors of troubled
families rise above adversity. New York: Villard.

Wyman, P. A., Cowen. E. L., Work, W. C, & Parker, G. R. (1991).
Developmental and family Milieu correlates of resilience in urban children who have
experienced major life stress. American Journal of Community Psychology. 19 (3). 405-
426.

Zaslow, M J. (1989). Sex differences in children's responses to parental divorce.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 59 (1). 118-141.

Zill, N., Morrison, D., & Coiro, M. (1993). Effects of divorce on parent-child
relationships, adjustment, and achievement in young adulthood. Journal of Family
Psychology. 7.91-103.

163

BIOGRAPHCIAL SKETCH

Virginia Montgomery Boney lives in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida with her three
daughters. She has been a counselor in the Counseling Center of the University of North
Florida for the past seven years, and has a joint appointmentship to teach graduate
counseling classes upon completion of her doctoral degree in Counselor Education. Her
area of specialization is in Marriage and Family Therapy, as a result of her interest and
commitment to strengthening families and relationships.

Ms. Boney is dually licensed by the State of Florida as a Marriage and Family
Therapist and a Mental Health Counselor. She is also approved as a Qualified Supervisor
for both professions, and is a Nationally Certified Counselor. While completing her
doctoral studies, she won the Aimual Student Paper Competition at the Doctoral Level
sponsored by the Florida Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. She was also
awarded the 2001-2002 Harold C. Riker Scholarship Award at the University of Florida.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fiiUy adequate, in scope and quality, as a
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Ellen S. AnlStea, Chair
Professor of Counselor Education

I certify that [ have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fiilly adequate, in scope and quality, as a
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Silvia Echevarria-Doan

Associate Professor of Counselor Education

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Peter A. D. Sherrard

Associate Professor of Counselor Education

M. David Miller

Professor of Educational Psychology

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education
and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

December 2002

Deahl College of Educiuon

Dean, Graduatd School